Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Governor’s Office’ Category

Retired State Budget Office Director: finding consistent clear, unambiguous state finances data nearly impossible

Posted in Budget, DOA, Finances, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators on June 3, 2015| 8 Comments »

 

Editor’s note: (Even as Bobby Jindal is preparing for the publication of his second ghostwritten book, we at LouisianaVoice are working to complete the manuscript for our own book about the Bobby Years which will most likely offer a slightly different perspective on his eight years in the governor’s office. We hope to publish our e-book about the same time as Bobby’s epic. Until then, we will probably be posting less frequently and instead depending more on knowledgeable people like Stephen Winham to make contributions like the one below.)

By Stephen Winham (Special to LouisianaVoice)

“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure” – attributed to Mark Twain [and others]

Every day we are bombarded with numbers about our state and its finances.  We are told one day there is a $1.6 billion dollar structural deficit in Louisiana’s budget.  A few days later we are led to believe it is all but fixed – just a little tweaking and fiscal legerdemain at the end and we will be okay – for a little while, at least long enough for the governor to move on.

Governor Jindal tells us the number of state employees has been reduced by over30,000, but we are not told how many of them (the vast bulk) are still being paid by the state via contracts with private companies.  Not only that, we can’t find documentation among civil service or other official records to substantiate the 30,000 number itself.  The governor also claims to have reduced the budget by 26%, but we can’t figure out how he came to that percentage either.

One day we are told Governor Blanco left a $1.2 billion surplus that has now been squandered.  The next day we are told it was $800 million and that it wasn’t squandered.  One day we are told the budget is now and has always been in balance.  Then, we look at the Governor’s own Executive Budgets and see financial statements clearly showing operating budget deficits in 2 of the 3 first years of the Jindal administration (and as recently as FY2013-2014 – the last year the audited total is reported – when a subtle format change enabled use of the undesignated general fund balance to show a positive bottom line – more on this shortly).

We even read conflicting reports of the size of the budget.  The State General Fund, on which the most focus was placed before we started “sweeping” dedicated funds, is one number.  Total state funding from all sources is another, the total budget including federal funds is another and spending including double-counts resulting from interagency transfers by individual departments is yet another.  All these numbers get reported at different times by different sources.

So, are we being lied to, or is that too strong a term?  One thing is for sure – finding clear, consistent and unambiguous data about state finances is next to impossible.

Over a quarter of a century ago, state leaders agreed there was a need for one set of numbers upon which everybody could agree for things like how much revenue we could expect, how much spending could be expected to grow based on trend data, how many state employees there were, etc., etc..  After all, everybody was entitled to their own opinions, but there should be but one set of facts, right?  Right, but has this become a reality?  Obviously not.

Let’s take just one example of what I am talking about here – the Blanco surplus and what happened to it during the Jindal administration.  Examining this one issue requires me to bombard you with even more numbers, but I hope you will see why this is necessary to make my point.

Many consider the best measure of the surplus for a given year the Undesignated Unreserved General Fund Balance shown on the balance sheet of governmental funds contained in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) prepared by the Division of Administration in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules and audited by the legislative auditor.  This number reflects how much money was available in the general fund in a given year, how much we spent or firmly obligated, and how much was left.  But, as we will see, using this source is problematic, particularly since recent practice has been to use dedicated funds as if they weren’t and the CAFR reporting format has changed.

Blanco’s last budget submission was the one for fiscal year 2007-2008.  However, Governor Jindal took over the last 6 months of that budget year and the budget changed dramatically by fiscal year end.  For that reason, we could say 2006-2007 was Blanco’s last full budget.  The CAFR surplus as defined above for FY 2006-2007 was $1.158 billion.  The total fund balance line shows $1.778 billion.  The comparable numbers for FY 2007-2008 were $442 million and $783 million.

The Governor’s Executive Budget proposal includes a comparative statement each year that shows the audited budget for the prior year, the estimated budget for the current year, and the governor’s recommended budget for the coming year.  The audited actual prior year numbers appearing on these statements seem to be the most consistent budget numbers of those currently available.  Those statements show operating surpluses of $1.088 billion for fiscal year 2006-2007 and $865.7 million for 2007-2008.

So, how much of a surplus did Blanco leave Jindal?  It apparently depends on where you look, when you look, and how you define surplus.  For lack of a better source, I would choose the ACTUAL column of the Comparative Statements in the Executive Budget documents for the time being.  But, because budgets cross one year of administrations, it may be hard to come up with a definite answer from any source.

What happened to the surplus?  Well, using the governor’s own budget documents, we see the surplus decreased by $790 million (from $865.7 million to $76 million) between FY 2007-2008 and FY 2008-2009.  The subsequent statements show a deficit of $108 million at the end of the next fiscal year, and a deficit of $14 million the next year.  The statement shows a zero balance the following year (FY 2011-2012).  That analysis, and the fact we raided every fund we could to “balance” the budget in recent years tells me it got spent.  It would appear most of it was spent on capital outlay projects (the statement for FY 2008-2009 shows a reservation of $782 million for FY 2009-2010 capital outlay appropriations).  This is a good use, so let’s hope that’s where it went.  But, if so, why would anybody want to deny the surplus was used in the budget, much less that it ever existed in the first place?

If you find all of this confusing, join the club – it’s a big one.  Does it have to be this way? No.  We, all of us, could demand a governor back up his statements with hard evidence.  We could ask questions like this of his budget people, “When was the last time our budget was really balanced, and what can you show me to prove it?”

Somebody knows exactly how many employees no longer show up on the state’s payroll, but were shifted to private sector jobs paid for through state contracts.  Even if you don’t care about that, wouldn’t you like to see hard evidence of how many people actually work for the state?  Believe it, or not, that would seem to be currently impossible.

There are a lot of good data out there.  Look at the publications of the Legislative Fiscal Office and the House and Senate fiscal staffs for proof.  These folks are providing a lot of excellent information right now that is being ignored by most of the very people they work for, along with the mainstream media.  Go to their websites and see for yourself.  You might be amazed at the amount of understandable fiscal information you find there.  But our legislators and the press take the easy way out – they accept far too many ad hoc statements from almost anybody as fact without questioning them as to the basis.  As a result, we are ALL done a great disservice.

The truth is out there.  We simply need to agree on what the truth is and demand to see it and to see it consistently reported.

A warning to our next governor:  You are walking into a fiscal nightmare.  Find some good people – Consider the staffs of the legislative agencies above and look closely for career employees currently working at the Division of Administration and elsewhere who are competent, brave, and have the inside knowledge you desperately need. Do not look entirely for sycophants who put numbers together to please you. You certainly need moral support for your positions, but you have a greater need for people who will tell you the truth.  By retaining them, you, and we all, will be well-served.

(Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Executive Budget Office for the State of Louisiana.)

Read Full Post »

Louisiana Inspector General issues power puff scolding of Jindal for presidential campaign letter on state web page

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Media on May 29, 2015| 18 Comments »

You have to hand it to Inspector General Stephen Street. When he finds Bobby Jindal in violation of the law, he comes down hard. With all the force of a powder puff.

Reacting to a complaint from C.B. Forgotston over Jindal’s use of his office’s taxpayer-funded web page and public salaried employees of the governor’s office to issue a press release critical of Republican presidential nomination candidate Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday, Street took all of two days is issue a less than scathing report on the matter. Statement from Inspector General 5-29-2015

Jindal, who is expected to announce his candidacy next month, issued the press release that said Rand was “unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief” for saying American foreign policy was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.

Louisiana Democratic Party Executive Director Stephen Handwerk called for an investigation by Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and Forgotston filed a complaint with Street’s office.

Jindal, for his part, defended the release through mouthpiece Mike Reed who offered one of the lamest of the lame in defenses in saying, “Matters of national security are very important to Louisianians, and Louisiana is home to many American soldiers. The suggestion that the governor of Louisiana cannot or should not comment on matters of national security is without merit.”

What? Mudslides, drought, forest fires and earthquakes are important to the folks in California. Floods are important to those unfortunate people in Texas and Oklahoma and at least a dozen states have been plagued with tornadoes. Why doesn’t he issue a press release criticizing nature?

It wasn’t the first time Bobby defended a really bad idea. Remember those $250 million berms he insisted on building in the Gulf to catch all that oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster? Despite advice from all the experts that the idea was a bad one, he plunged ahead (no pun intended) and what happened? The berms and the bulldozers hauled in to build them up simply disappeared into the depths of the Gulf waters. And even after all that, he continued to insist the berms were a good idea.

Too bad Jindal has not been as tuned in to the matters of fiscal insecurity that are also important to Louisianians. If he were, perhaps the state wouldn’t be finding it necessary to slash higher education and health care budgets. Health care, after all, is pretty important to Louisianians, too—especially to those who don’t have it because of Bobby Jindal. So are our roads and bridges and coastal erosion—things a sitting governor should be devoting his attention to instead of remarks by a potential political rival.

Forgotston, prior to Street’s crushing blow to Jindal, wrote, “While you are working on the response to my complaint about the governor violating the state constitution, please include your position on his violation of this felony statute:

  • R.S. 18:1465.  Prohibited use of public funds
  • A.  No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization.  This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot.
  • B.  Whoever violates any provision of this Section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or both.

Street, for his part, showed all the backbone of a jellyfish in his Friday release that followed his thorough, two-day investigation of Jindal’s taxpayer-funded campaign release tirade.

After reprinting Jindal’s statement, Street went on to say, “It is a matter of record that Senator Rand Paul has announced his candidacy for President of the United States and has a website…through which he is raising money to support his campaign. However, as qualifying for the Louisiana Presidential Primary will not take place until December of 2015, it is unclear at this time whether Senator Paul is a “candidate” as contemplated by …the Louisiana Constitution.

“Louisiana Revised Statute 18:451 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

  • A person who meets the qualifications for the office he seeks may become a candidate and be voted on in a primary or general election if he qualifies as a candidate in the election.

He also cited a statute which, while defining the word candidate, “specifically excludes those seeking the Presidency of the United States from the definition.” He said inasmuch as that provision is in the chapter dealing with campaign finance, it is unclear how broadly it applies to the Louisiana Constitution).

Street, while dancing around the issue, did acknowledge that the applicable section of constitution “is intended to protect public funds and therefore raises questions about the use of public funds in this instance that resulted in the complaints filed with this office. The governor’s office could have easily avoided such questions by issuing the statement through means that did not involve the use of public funds or employees,” he said, adding that his office “recommends that in order to avoid confusion and any appearance of impropriety in the future, any such statements by the governor be issued through non-publicly funded means rather than through his publicly funded and maintained state website.”

Wow. Jindal must feel like Street jerked a half-hitch in his neck with that devastating report.

Read Full Post »

Holy ethics violations, Batman! Now it’s Bobby Jindal in violation of law by using state web page to attack opponent

Posted in Auditor, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Senate, State Agencies, Vitter on May 27, 2015| 15 Comments »

No sooner did we call U.S. Sen. David Vitter out for potential improprieties for using his Senate franking privileges to gain an edge over his three opponents in this year’s gubernatorial election than our old friend C.B. Forgotston send us evidence of an even more flagrant misuse of his office for similar reasons.

It’s enough to make you wonder what the hell goes through these politicians’ minds except that we already know: they are so convinced they are above the law that they couldn’t care less what the great unwashed think about their flaunting of the rules.

We’ve previously reported Jindal’s acceptance of tainted campaign contributions from the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (non-profits are prohibited from making campaign contributions), laundered money from a St. Tammany Parish bank board of directors (without the 11 directors’ awareness they were “contributing” $5,000 each to Jindal) and the head of Florida’s largest-ever Ponzi scheme who funneled $30,000 in contributions to Jindal from himself, his wife and his law firm.

Within an hour of posting the story about Vitter’s use of franking privileges to promote his gubernatorial campaign, LouisianaVoice’s email exploded with messages about Jindal’s latest post on the governor’s web page, paid for by Louisiana taxpayer dollars.

The first email was from Forgotston, who has fired off a letter to Inspector General Stephen Street demanding an answer to his inquiry as to the legality of Jindal’s “press release” on Tuesday.

So what, exactly, is all the fuss about?

Quite simply, Jindal used the state computer and web page (and presumably a state employee) to gin out a “press release” personally attacking one of Jindal’s probable opponents for the Republican nomination for president under the headline “Gov. Jindal: Senator Paul unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief.” http://www.gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=4965

Paul, a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, is an announced candidate for the Republican nomination. https://randpaul.com/

And what did Paul do or say that prompted Jindal to ignore legal constraints on the use of state web pages? Apparently, Paul said something to the effect that ISIS exists because of the U.S. hawkish foreign policy—a claim, by the way, that we cannot entirely disagree with.

“This is a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief,” Jindal whined.

Except he did his whining on a state-funded web page and that immediately invoked the wrath of a number of readers and Forgotston, who once worked as a legal counsel for the legislature, is not the one you want to tick off when it comes to matters concerning the state constitution.

In his email to Street, Forgotston began by describing the Jindal press release as “a violation of Louisiana Constitution, Article XI, 4.”

In case you don’t want to take the time to open the link, it says that while there is no prohibition against the use of public funds to disseminate factual information about a proposition appearing on an election ballot, “no public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization.”

“It (the press release) clearly urges a vote against U.S. Senator Rand Paul for President of the United States,” he said. “The press release was issued by state employees (the release contained the names of Shannon Bates Dirmann and Shannon, Deputy Communications Director for the Governor’s Office) and has no disclaimer that public funds were not used.

“If this is not a violation of the law, please advise why it isn’t,” Forgotston said. He ended his email by writing, in all caps, “A RESPONSE IS REQUESTED,” which he said “is not directed to any recipients of his email other than the State Inspector General.”

In case any of our readers also would like to submit a similar question to the OIG, here is Street’s email address: stephen.street@la.gov.

Forgotston said he will also share his concerns with Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera.

As Forgotston himself is fond of saying: you can’t make this stuff up.

 

Read Full Post »

Vitter may be making use of U.S. Senate franking privilege to unfair advantage over his three opponents in governor’s race

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Senate, Vitter on May 27, 2015| 14 Comments »

 

U.S. Sen. David Vitter could be setting himself up for a repeat of ethics complaints over a perceived use of his Senate franking privileges in his campaign for governor.

The congressional franking privilege, which originated in 1775, allows members of Congress to send official notices, brochures and updates to constituents back home under their signature without having to pay postage. Congress, through legislative appropriations, reimburses the U.S. Postal Service for franked mail it handles.

Vitter is not a candidate for re-election in the 2016 election but instead is running to succeed Bobby Jindal as governor against three other candidates. He is making full use of his franking privileges to announce town hall meetings across the state to address local issues. One such mail-out has caught the attention of LouisianaVoice.

Reform efforts over the past two decades have reduced overall franking expenditures from $113.4 million in fiscal year 1988 to $16.9 million in FY 2014 and even then, many of the mail-outs are simply tossed unread by recipients back home. Much of that reduction can be attributed to a shift to electronic communications rather than any real reform of the practice.

Franking has come under wide criticism by opponents of the privilege who say it:

  • Is financially wasteful;
  • Has become outdated with the introduction of other forms of communication, i.e. e-mail;
  • Is abused for private and political gain;
  • Gives unfair advantages to incumbents in congressional elections.

The last two could be cited as giving Vitter an unfair edge in this fall’s governor’s race. While he is not running for re-election, he is a candidate for governor and his Senate franking privileges could be looked upon as an unfair advantage over fellow Republicans—Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne—and Democrat State Rep. John Bel Edwards who are also running for governor.

Franking rules strictly prohibit incumbents from actually soliciting votes when the mail-outs are done on the taxpayer dime but they do not preclude addressing hot button issues like immigration, social security, veterans’ benefits, etc.

In 2009, Louisiana Democratic Party Chairman Chris Whittington filed an official ethics complaint against Vitter for his verbal attacks on U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, an eventual opponent in Vitter’s 2010 re-election campaign. Those attacks were made in local meetings pursuant to mass mail-outs by Vitter via the franking privilege.

Whittington said Vitter, by explicitly invoking the name of Melancon in his so-called town hall meetings, publicized in advance by franking mail-outs, crossed the line from official business (the supposed purpose of franking) to campaigning.

Though the words “vote for…” never appeared in any of Vitter’s mailings, reports from his town hall meetings across the state made it clear that he mentioned Melancon often. Vitter in turn charged that the Democrats were trying to “shut down the debate and suggest that it’s somehow out of bounds. Well, it’s not out of bounds because this is still America,” he said.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/22/770585/-LA-Sen-Louisiana-Dems-File-Ethics-Complaint-Against-Sen-Vitter#

In Vitter’s most recent franking mail-out, he issued an invitation to one of his town hall meetings on Monday, June 1 in the chambers of the East Baton Rouge Council “to discuss possible solutions to relieve traffic congestion. We’ll also discuss efforts like working to pass a long-term highway reauthorization bill that would help to update our roads and bridges,” the announcement said. IMAG0721(CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

While strictly interpreted, such a discussion could easily be passed off as a federal concern with federal roads and highways crisscrossing East Baton Rouge Parish. That, along with the unquestioned problem of traffic congestion experienced by local motorists, could easily be construed by Vitter as a Senate-related issue.

We have no way of knowing at this point, but it would seem a safe bet that similar town hall meetings have been or will be announced by Vitter via franking in other parts of the state to discuss other pressing problems.

But coming as it does in the middle of what promises to be a heated election season in Louisiana, it would appear to give Vitter a decided—and unfair—advantage over his three opponents who do not have the luxury of free campaign mail-outs.

Nor would it be the first time Vitter has skated on the edge of campaign rules.

In January of 2014, Vitter was up against a state law that prohibited him from using his seven-figure campaign funds amassed as a federal office-holder for a state campaign.

No problem for a manipulators like Vitter and Charlie Spies, a Republican lawyer who was instrumental in launching Mitt Romney’s largest super PAC. In early 2013, Spies created the Fund for Louisiana’s Future and registered the super PAC both federally and in Louisiana in order “to support Sen. Vitter whether he ran for re-election to the Senate or for governor.”

Thus did Vitter become perhaps the first politician in the U.S. to be the largest single funder of his own super PAC.

A former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission said Vitter’s funding of his own super PAC, unprecedented to that point, raised the issue of the separation of super PACs and a candidate’s campaign “to a new level.”

Another observer, Paul Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said the existing Louisiana prohibition of the use of federal campaign funds in a state campaign was the only plausible reason for a candidate ceding control of his own campaign funds by transferring cash from his federal campaign to his gubernatorial campaign.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-david-vitter-shattered-another-campaign-finance-rule-20140601

Stand by, folks. This election campaign promises to be a tad out of the ordinary, even by Louisiana’s unique standards.

Read Full Post »

State Treasurer John Kennedy lobs extortion accusation at administration in support of Rep. Richard’s contracts bill

Posted in Audit Reports, Auditor, Civil Service, Contract, Contracts, DHH, DOA, Education, Finances, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, House, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Public Records, Revenue, State Agencies, Transparency on May 26, 2015| 8 Comments »

State Treasurer John Kennedy on Tuesday told the House Appropriations Committee that the Division of Administration exerts extortion-like tactics against legislators and takes the approach that it should not be questioned about the manner in which it hands out state contracts and that the legislature should, in effect, keep its nose out of the administration’s business.

Kennedy was testifying on behalf of House Bill 30 by State Rep. Jerome Richard (I-Thibodaux) which provides for reporting, review and approval by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget (JLCB) of all contracts for professional, personal and consulting services totaling $40,000 or more per year which are funded exclusively with state general fund (SGF) or the Overcollections Fund. HB 30

HB 30 FISCAL NOTES

Kennedy, in a matter of only a few minutes’ testimony, attacked figures provided by three representatives of the Division of Administration (DOA) who objected to the bill because of what they termed additional delays that would be incurred in contract approval and because of claimed infringement upon the separation of powers between the legislative and administrative branches of government.

Here is the link to the committee hearing. While Kennedy spoke at length on the bill, the gist of his remarks about DOA begin at about one hour and 13 minutes into his testimony. You can move your cursor to that point and pick up his attacks on DOA. http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/VideoArchivePlayer.aspx?v=house/2015/may/0526_15_AP

That argument appeared to be a reach at best considering it is the legislature that appropriates funding for the contracts. It also appeared more of a smokescreen for the real objections: DOA’s, and by extension, Bobby Jindal’s wish that the administration be allowed to continue to operate behind closed doors and without any oversight, unanswerable to anyone.

DOA representatives tried to minimize the effect of the bill by downplaying the number and dollar amount of the contracts affected (which raises the obvious question of why the opposition to the bill if its impact would be so minimal). The administration said only 164 contracts totaling some $29 million would be affected by the bill.

Kennedy, however, was quick to jump on those figures. “The numbers the division provided you are inaccurate,” he said flatly. “The Legislative Auditor, who works for you,” he told committee members, “just released a report that says there are 14,000 consulting contracts, plus another 4600 ‘off the books.’

“The fiscal notes of 2014 by the Legislative Fiscal Office—not the Division (DOA)—said the number of contracts approved in 2013 by the Office of Contractual Review was 2,001—not 160—professional, personal and consulting service contracts with a total value of $3.1 billion,” he said. “I don’t know where DOA is getting its numbers.

“To sum up their objections,” he said, “it appears to me that DOA and more to the point, the bureaucracy, is smarter than you and knows how to spend taxpayer dollars better than you. That’s the bottom line. They don’t want you to know. This bill will not be overly burdensome to you. Thirty days before the JLCB hearing, you will get a list of contracts. If there are no questions, they fly through. If there are questions, you can ask.”

Kennedy tossed a grenade at DOA on the issue of separation of powers when he accused the administration of blackmailing legislators who might be reluctant to go along with its programs.

“Let’s talk about how the division’s advice on contracts has worked out,” he said. “The Division advised you to spend all the $800 million in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly. Now they have zero in that account. In fact, they pushed you to do that. Some of you were told if you didn’t do that, you’d lose your Capital Outlay projects. How’s that for separation of powers? How’d that work out for you?

“My colleagues from Division who just testified against the bill are the same ones who told you to take $400 million out of the (Office of Group Benefits) savings account set aside to pay retirees’ and state employees’ health claims. How’d that work out?”

Kennedy didn’t stop there. He came prepared with an entire laundry list of accusations against the administration.

“My colleagues from Division are the ones who told you, ‘Look, we need to privatize our health care delivery system,’ which I support in concept. They sat at this table and I heard them say we would only have to spend $600 million per year on our public-private partnership and (that it would be) a great deal ‘because right now we’re spending $900 million.’ I thought we’d be saving $300 million a year. Except we’re not spending $600 million; we’re spending $1.3 billion and we don’t have the slightest idea whether it’s (the partnerships) working. How’d that work out for you?

“I sat right here at this table and I heard my friends from Division say we need to do Bayou Health managed care. You now appropriate $2.8 billion a year for four health insurance companies to treat 900,000 of our people—not their people, our people,” he said. “There’s just one problem: when the Legislative Auditor goes to DHH (the Department of Health and Hospitals) to audit it (the program), they tell him no.”

Kennedy said that pursuant to orders from DOA, “the only way they can audit is if they take the numbers given him (Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera) by the insurance companies.

“This is a good bill,” he said. “It’s not my bill. My preference is to tell Division to cut 10 percent on all contracts and if you can’t do it, you will be unemployed. But this bill allows you to see where the taxpayer money is being spent.

“I have more confidence in you than I do in the people who’re doing things right now,” he said.

Kennedy said he was somewhat reluctant to testify about the bill “but I’m not going to let this go—especially the part about separation of powers.

“You want to see a blatant example of separation of powers?” he asked rhetorically, returning to the issue of the administration’s heavy handedness. “How about if I have a bill but you don’t read it. You either vote for it or you lose your Capital Outlay projects. How’s that for separation of powers?”

That evoked memories from November of 2012 when Jindal removed two representatives from their committee assignments one day after they voted against the administration’s proposed contract between the Office of Group Benefits and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana.

“Everything they (legislative committees) do is scripted,” said Rep. Joe Harrison (R-Gray), speaking to LouisianaVoice about his removal from the House Appropriations Committee. “I’ve seen the scripts. They hand out a list of questions we are allowed to ask and they tell us not to deviate from the list and not to ask questions that are not in the best interest of the administration.” https://louisianavoice.com/2012/11/02/notable-quotables-in-their-own-words-142/

Rep. John Schroder (R-Covington) asked Kennedy what his budget was to which Kennedy responded, “Less than last year and less that year than the year before and probably will be even less after this hearing. But you know what? I don’t care.

“There’s nothing you can say to get Division to support this bill,” he said. “They’re just not going to do it.

“You can’t find these contracts with a search party. But if you require them to come before you, you can get a feel for how money is being spent that people work hard for and you can provide a mechanism to shift some of that spending to higher priorities.

“Next year, you will spend $47 million on consulting contracts for coastal restoration. I’m not against coastal restoration; I’m all for it. But these consultants will not plant a blade of swamp grass. Don’t tell me they can’t do the job for 10 percent less. That $47 million is more than the entire state general fund appropriation for LSU-Shreveport, Southern University-Shreveport, McNeese and Nicholls State combined.

“Under the law, agencies are supposed to go before the Civil Service Board and show that the work being contracted cannot be done by state employees but that is perfunctory at best,” Kennedy said.

To the administration’s arguments of delays in contract approvals and infringements on the separation of powers, Rep. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles) dug in his heels. “This is not a bad thing,” he insisted. “We’re not going to go through every page of every contract unless someone calls it to our attention. It doesn’t matter if it’s 14,000 or 14 million contracts. The number is immaterial. If there’s an issue with a contract, we need to look at it.”

For once, the administration did not have its way with the legislature. The committee approved the bill unanimously and it will now move to the House floor for debate where Jindal’s forces are certain to lobby hard against its passage.

Should the bill ultimately pass both the House and Senate, Jindal will in all likelihood, veto the measure and at that point, we will learn how strong the legislature’s resolve really is.

But for Kennedy, the line has been drawn in the dust.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »