Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Legislature, Legislators’ Category

Jindal’s plan to privatize Louisiana prisons still on the table; Florida’s governor may be laying groundwork in that state

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Prison, Privatization on January 27, 2012| 5 Comments »

So far Gov. Bobby Jindal, flush from his re-election last fall, has chosen two pro-business groups to announce sweeping reform efforts for his second term, unveiling his education reform at the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and proposed state employee pension plan changes to the Baton Rouge Rotary Club.

Selecting friendly venues for major announcements seems to be the preferred method for Jindal who wisely eschewed teachers groups and state employee gatherings to unveil his agenda. Louisiana Public Service Commission (PCS) Chairman Foster Campbell observed that had he revealed his proposed pension program to state employees, “they’d have booed him out of the room.”

And while he has yet to address state corrections, you can be certain he has state prison privatization squarely in his crosshairs. All those private prison companies did not contribute to his election campaign just for the fun of it.

Only last Wednesday, the Florida Senate Budget Committee, at the urging of Jindal’s fellow Republican Gov. Rick Scott, passed a bill to privatize 29 South Florida prisons—to turn them over to for-profit companies that would be required to produce cost cuts of 7 percent below the cost of state-run facilities.

But there’s a more ominous undercurrent to that bill that gives the Florida governor far-reaching powers to expand privatization to other agencies. Under the latest proposals, an agency would not have to report its privatization of a program until after a contract is signed. The bill also will eliminate the legal requirement to perform a cost-benefit analysis before privatizing any governmental function.

Doing away with the cost-benefit analysis reveals in no uncertain terms just how little concern Scott and his allies have about real savings. Don’t for a minute think that Jindal is not in constant contact with Scott on that particular nuance. After all, Jindal did travel to Florida to campaign for Scott’s election. And don’t for one minute think that Jindal is concerned about savings or of the welfare of state employees. It’s all about money—campaign money.

Jindal’s second effort at privatization is a certainty but it is nevertheless worthwhile to take a look at the dollars and cents of privatizing prisons.

Of the 50 states, Louisiana sits alone at the top with the highest prison incarceration rate in the nation at 858 per 100,000. Mississippi is second at 749 per 100,000.

In absolute numbers, Louisiana ranked 11th in the nation in actual prison population in 2007 (37,341) even though the state was 25th in population. Those numbers likely have only increased in the past five years. From 1990 to 2004, Louisiana’s prison population nearly doubled, increasing by 98.6 percent, from 18,600 to 36,900, federal records show.

The U.S., with more than two million prisoners, ranks highest in the world, nearly half-a-million more than number-two China. The U.S. also has the highest per capita number of prisoners with 715 per 100,000. Russia is a distant second with 584 prisoners per 100,000 population.

So, if the U.S. has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world and Louisiana has the highest rate in the U.S. that gives Louisiana the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.

So, what does all this mean in the terms of costs to house, feed and care for all these prisoners? That, after all, would appear on the surface to be the consideration uppermost in Jindal’s mind: saving the state beaucoup money.

In August of 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice, with offices in Washington, D.C., New Orleans and New York City, conducted a survey to determine the total cost of prisons in fiscal year 2010. Thirty-nine of the 50 states responded to the survey which provided some rather interesting figures. That cost is computed on the basis of what the state spends over and above the amounts budgeted for prisons. The additional costs include, but are not limited to, pension liabilities, medical care, inmate education and training, capital construction, legal and administrative costs.

Louisiana had a per prisoner cost of $17,486 in 2010 ($47.91 per day), fourth lowest of the 39 responding states. By comparison, Kentucky’s annual cost per prisoner was $14,603 and Alabama’s was $17,285.

Louisiana’s annual cost per prisoner paled in comparison to several other states. Florida ($20,553), Georgia ($21,039), Texas ($21,390, Missouri ($22,350), Arkansas ($24,391), Arizona ($24,895), Ohio ($25,814), and North Carolina ($29,965) all had higher annual per-prisoner costs.

But five other states’ annual costs per prisoner really soared. Illinois had an annual per-prisoner cost of $38,268, followed by Pennsylvania ($42,339), California ($47,421), New Jersey ($54,865) and New York ($60,076), nearly three-and-one-half higher than Louisiana’s.

The one statistic that Jindal is almost certain to roll out when he makes his inevitable push to privatize Louisiana’s prisons will be the cost per taxpayer. So, let’s take a look at those numbers as well.

Of the 39 responding states, 21 did in fact have lower costs than Louisiana’s per-taxpayer cost of $698.40 per annum, putting the state almost squarely in the middle of the pack. In North Dakota, for example, the per-taxpayer cost was a paltry $58.10. Others, like Oklahoma ($453.40), Alabama ($462.50) and Missouri ($680.50) were closer to Louisiana’s figures.

But then there are states like Arizona ($1,003.60), Georgia ($1,129.90), North Carolina ($1,204.70), Michigan ($1,268), Ohio ($1,315.50), New Jersey ($1,416.70), Illinois ($1,743.20), Pennsylvania ($2,044.30), Florida ($2,082.50), Texas ($3,306.40), New York ($3,558.70), and California ($7,932.40).

Let those last few numbers sink in: Florida’s annual per-taxpayer cost of housing and caring for prisoners is three times Louisiana’s cost. The yearly per-taxpayer rate for Texas is 4.7 times Louisiana’s rate and New York’s rate is five times Louisiana’s per-taxpayer rate. And then there is California where the per-taxpayer rate of $7,932.40 per year is a whopping 11.3 times that of Louisiana.

So, just how will Jindal sell his economic plan for prisons when so many states have both higher per-prisoner and per-taxpayer costs associated with housing, feeding and caring for prisoners?

That should be the number-one question for anyone to ask of Jindal who by now is so caught up in his own brilliance as to think himself infallible. How do you propose to save money when the state’s costs are already a mere fraction of many other states? It’s a question that demands an answer.

The answer, of course, is for the private companies to cut costs by slashing salaries and benefits, reducing the number of guards and taking a page from the charter school playbook: take only the best of the crop (best being a relative term).

A betting man could make a few bucks by making a wager that sick prisoners requiring expensive medical care and violent prisoners requiring tighter security (read: more guards) will not be taken by the private operators. Those will be left to the state’s care. Bet on it.

Below are the rankings in terms of per-prisoner cost and per-taxpayer cost for the 39 responding states:

ANNUAL PER PRISONER COST (BY STATE)
Kentucky $14,603
Indiana $14,823
Alabama $17,285
Louisiana $17,486
Kansas $18,207
Oklahoma $18,467
Idaho $19,545
Florida $20,553
Nevada $20,656
Georgia $21,039
Texas $21,390
Missouri $22,350
Arkansas $24,391
Arizona $24,895
Virginia $25,129
Ohio $25,814
West Virginia $26,498
Michigan $28,117
Utah $29,349
North Carolina $29,965
Montana $30,227
Iowa $32,925
Delaware $32,967
New Hampshire $34,080
Nebraska $35,950
Wisconsin $37,994
Illinois $38,268
Maryland $38,383
North Dakota $39,271
Minnesota $41,364
Pennsylvania $42,339
California $47,421
Rhode Island $49,133
Vermont $49,502
Connecticut $50,262
Washington State $51,775
New Jersey $54,865
Maine $56,269
New York $60,076

ANNUAL PER TAXPAYER COST (BY STATE)

North Dakota $56.20
Montana $76.00
New Hampshire $80.30
Vermont $111.30
Maine $132.90
Idaho $144.70
Kansas $158.20
Nebraska $163.30
West Virginia $169.20
Rhode Island $172.10
Utah $186.00
Delaware $215.20
Iowa $276.00
Nevada $282.90
Kentucky $311.70
Arkansas $326.10
Minnesota $395.30
Oklahoma $453.40
Alabama $462.50
Indiana $569.50
Missouri $680.50
Louisiana $698.40
Virginia $748.60
Maryland $836.20
Washington State $838.40
Wisconsin $874.40
Connecticut $929.40
Arizona $1,003.60
Georgia $1,129.90
North Carolina $1,204.70
Michigan $1,268.00
Ohio $1,315.50
New Jersey $1,416.70
Illinois $1,743.20
Pennsylvania $2,055.30
Florida $2,082.50
Texas $3,306.40
New York $3,558.70
California $7,932.40

Read Full Post »

Reader: Rumors of Jindal’s demise exaggerated, mistaken

Posted in Attorney General, Education, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement on January 25, 2012| 7 Comments »

A politically astute friend who shall remain nameless has been quick to challenge last week’s suggestion that Gov. Bobby Jindal may have lost his Midas touch. He described, in so many words, the notion that Jindal’s luck may have been pushed to the breaking point as about as realistic as Newt Gingrich’s chances of capturing the GOP presidential nomination.

“Don’t believe it,” our friend, longtime political observer, cautioned. “The governor got exactly what he wanted with the committee assignments in the House and Senate. Those (who) dared criticize him in the past have been removed from the money committees and banished to Labor or cultural Affairs and other backwater committees.”

Strong words indeed. But he wasn’t finished. “He has a hand-picked Education Committee in both chambers to do his bidding, not to mention the rubber-stamp BESE. And speaking of education, the governor finally announced his agenda for the 2012 session.”

He went on to say of that education plan released by Jindal on Jan. 17 that if people read it carefully and also read between the lines, they will understand that it is nothing more than a blueprint “to destroy public education in Louisiana.”

“If he can pull off even half of what he is proposing for education, it will be the most sweeping changes in the history of public education in Louisiana,” he said. Note that he never said that he thinks the plan is good.

“Teachers are going to be furious,” he said. His (Jindal’s) strategy to drive a wedge between superintendents, principals and school boards is ingenious. Divide and conquer!

“I’m not sure the public will see this plan for what it is: to destroy public education in this state and replace (it) with state-controlled charter schools and the like. I am not in favor of that but I’d say he has set himself up for a lot of success.

“The main problem is the teachers unions are their own worst enemies and I’m not sure they understand what approach they need to take to counteract the governor. If they set themselves up as simply opposed to any change just to be opposed to change, the governor will eat them alive. The public realizes that the education system is broken and they want change. Jindal will use that to get what he wants.”

Never one to be labeled as a one-trick pony, our friend dug the knife in a little deeper with his observations about the flare-up between Jindal, aka Booby Jihad, and Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a flare-up that sputtered and died a quick death once Caldwell got a quick lesson in political realities.

Caldwell had earlier had the temerity to challenge Jindal’s decision to pay attorneys representing the state in the BP Gulf spill litigation a percentage of any recovery as opposed to an hourly rate favored by Caldwell.

Caldwell, supposedly the state’s top legal expert (excluding judges, who always have the final say), accused Jindal of interfering with his (Caldwell’s) handling of the case. Jindal further outraged Caldwell by signing off on a legal document in which Jindal agreed not to appeal any awards made for legal fees, and Caldwell, who doubles as a part time Elvis impersonator, said so.

You’ll just have to forgive us here, but Jindal thought Caldwell’s Suspicious Mind was Too Much and got All Shook Up. The governor, through an intermediary, sent Caldwell the message that it was all about the Money Honey and by the time it was over, Caldwell was singing Don’t Be Cruel.

Okay, that’s enough of that. In reality, our friend said, “Caldwell forgot a fundamental rule of politics: he who pays the fiddler calls the dance. Caldwell (and most of the other statewide elected officials) thinks he can do what he wants because is independently elected. But he forgot that the governor controls the purse strings (read: agency budget allocations). Oops!’”

Pension Plan Changes Proposed

On Wednesday of this week, Jindal released his plan to overhaul Louisiana’s state employee pension system that would increase retirement contributions for about 54,000 current employees while reducing benefits and extending the eligible retirement age for many of them.

Jindal also wants to move away from the present system for new hires, doing away with the monthly pension check to a lump sum retirement payment based on contributions and earnings. This would abolish the present defined benefits system in favor of a defined contribution one whereby employees no longer would be guaranteed a set monthly retirement payment but instead would make a guaranteed contribution to the pension system with no guarantee of return, much like a 401K program.

Oddly, Jindal’s proposal would apply only to the Louisiana State Employees Retirement System (LASERS), which has an unfunded liability of $6.45 billion. He exempts the state’s other three systems—teachers, school employees and state police. The Teachers Retirement System alone has a debt of $10.8 billion.

He said he prefers to leave teachers and school employees alone for the time being because of proposed educational changes on the horizon.

He said legislation will be pre-filed this week for consideration during the upcoming 85-day legislative session that opens on March 12.

Education Fight Looms

In his press conference last week, Jindal chose to unveil his education plans at the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), a virtual slap in the face to teachers, the group that he should have been addressing. But a virtual slap is probably appropriate considering his penchant for charter schools and virtual schools.

Just what is a virtual school anyway? Does it provide a virtual education? Do graduates get virtual jobs? Do they pay virtual taxes and give virtual campaign contributions?

Jindal, as is his custom, continues to paint all teachers with the same broad brush, a tactic that is patently unfair and grossly inaccurate. He talks about failing schools and poor teachers and giving students—the better students, to be sure—into better schools (read: charters).

To say a student fails because of a poor teacher is not only callous, but stupid. For example, in a class of say, 25 students, there are 23 students from poor economic backgrounds. Still, six of these students excel in classroom work and make top grades. Nineteen make Cs, Ds, and Fs. This same scenario is repeated throughout the school so the school is a failing school and the teachers are labeled as poor teachers and fired under Jindal’s plan.

But how does one explain those six students in that class who excel? Did they make top grades without the benefit of good teaching? No, Mr. Jindal, they did not, any more than the nineteen did poorly because of bad teaching. All 25 students were exposed to the same classroom material, had access to the same textbooks and took the same tests.

In my own school, Ruston High School, I sat in the same classroom with students who slept during class, never turned in homework assignments, never participated in classroom discussions, and consistently made D’s and F’s on tests. I also sat in the same classroom with Joel Tellinghusen who would go on to pioneer laser surgery, and Bill Higgs who would one day become an acclaimed heart surgeon in Mobile, Alabama. A couple of years ahead of me was Patricia Wells who would go on to a stellar career as a soprano with the Metropolitan Opera.

So, were the teachers at Ruston High School graded on the basis of those who did poorly or on the basis of the Joel Tellinghusens, Bill Higgs and Pat Wells? We will never know because that absurd method of grading schools wasn’t around then. They just let teachers teach. Wow. What a concept.

When kids come from poor economic backgrounds and parents take little or no interest in the children’s educational progress, kids generally reflect those demographics with poor grades. Motivated students listen to teachers, read assignments, do homework, and do well on tests. Period.

Yet, we have an outfit called Educate Now in this state that lists schools in New Orleans only by whether or not they are Recovery School District (RSD) schools or voucher-accepting private schools. The organization then lists the percentage of students who score above basic on English and math in grades 3-5.

That’s it. There is no attempt to take into account students’ prior achievement, no consideration of demographic variables like economic background, and no consideration of whether or not students are eligible for vouchers only if they had been attending a failing public school.

In short, there is no statistical analysis whatsoever—a pitiful method of judging the merit of voucher schools.

“The governor wants the new untested teacher evaluation program to form the basis for firing or demoting large numbers of teachers based on student test scores,” said Michael Deshotels, a retired educator.

“Never have I seen such a misguided and wrong-headed attempt to implement change in our educational system as was announced by Gov. Jindal on Tuesday,” he said. “If you study the governor’s proposals you can only come to the conclusion that he believes that the teaching profession in Louisiana is rife with incompetent or lazy teachers and administrators, and that if we simply fire and replace them our students will magically start doing much better on the state tests. Almost everything in the governor’s plan is based on this incorrect assumption,” he said.

Ron Clark, a teacher who started his own academy in Atlanta, had an interesting perspective on teaching and so-called failing schools: “It’s usually the best teachers who are giving the lowest grades because they are raising expectations. The truth is, a lot of times it’s the bad teachers who give the easiest grades because they know by giving good grades everyone will leave them alone. Parents will say, ‘My child has a great teacher! He made all A’s this year’ and the teacher (parents) are complaining about is actually the one that is providing the best education.”

The problem with Jindal’s plan for education, says Deshotels, is that “it is based upon an untested value-added model similar to one that is already failing in Tennessee and New York. In Louisiana the two chief architects of the new value-added model have resigned from their roles in the program, passing this potential monster on to other staff,” he added.

Read Full Post »

Jindal contempt for state employees, Civil Service evident; ask anyone brave or foolish enough to disagree with him

Posted in Civil Service, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Teague, Transparency on December 21, 2011| 2 Comments »

If one thinks Gov. Bobby Jindal, that paradigm of virtue, is not capable of vindictive reprisals in order to advance his political agenda, one need look no further than the 2009 standoff between Jindal and the State Civil Service Commission.

The short version of this story reveals Jindal to be as capable of no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners dirty fighting as any politician anywhere, at any level.

The story actually begins in 2006 in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and about two years before Jindal took office.

That is when the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) was created to deal with emergencies like hurricanes and oil spills, among other things.

Initially, GOHSEP’s staff was assigned to the governor’s office but then the legislature decided that current and future GOHSEP employees would be unclassified civil servants. They previously were unclassified as part of the state’s Military Department (National Guard).

Barry Erwin, president of the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL), pointed out that unclassified employees work at the pleasure of the hiring authority, meaning an entire agency of unclassified workers would be subject to a governor’s patronage.

While unclassified employees don’t enjoy the job protection that classified employees do, neither are they bound by the same pay classifications. That means their salaries can—and are—set at considerably higher pay levels.

On average, unclassified employees make about $20,000 per year than their classified counterparts.

Moreover, unclassified employees are not required to meet strict earning guidelines, job qualifications or rules for promotion as do classified workers.

The Civil Service Commission attempted to learn what some of those GOHSEP salaries were and promptly met with claims of executive privilege. The commission, concerned at the proposal to change 425 GOHSEP employees from classified to unclassified and offended at Jindal’s resistance to transparency, filed suit to block the move.

While the lawsuit was pending, Jindal’s forces went into action. Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) promptly filed SB-209 calling for a constitutional amendment to provide “that the director, deputy director and all employees of (GOHSEP) are included in the unclassified service of the state civil service.”

The Civil Service Commission’s concerns notwithstanding, the bill passed the Senate by a unanimous 39-0 vote. The House likewise approved the measure by a 72-11 vote with 21 members not voting.

Jindal signed the bill as Act 538 and the matter was placed on the ballot for Oct. 2, 2010. Voters subsequently approved the measure by the narrowest of margins: 306,106—283,185 (51.9 percent to 48.1 percent) and the controversy appeared settled in favor of increased power for the governor.

But not so fast.

Not to be trifled with, Jindal went on the offensive against the Civil Service Commission and about 62,000 state classified employees. His attack dog this time was Rep. John Schroder (R-Abita Springs).

Schroder filed five separate bills in the 2010 session each of which had civil service directly in its crosshairs.

The crown jewel of those five bills was HB-753 which would have called for a constitutional amendment to abolish the State Civil Service Commission and the Department of Civil Service, effective Jan. 9, 2012.

The other bills included:

• HB-752, which called for a constitutional amendment to grant the legislature sole authority to provide for pay increases for persons in state service;

• HB-754, which called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit pay increases to persons in state service when there is a budget deficit;

• HB-755, which called for a constitutional amendment to require the legislature to determine prior to each fiscal year if a pay increase may be granted to persons in state service and if so, the manner and amount of the increase;

• HB-757, which would have required reports regarding employees of the Department of Civil Service and that copies of those reports be sent to the Senate President and Speaker of the House.

Neither of the bills made it out of committee but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be back on the legislature’s calendar next spring.

With another major budget deficit looming in the not so distant future, it’s probable that state employees will be denied pay raises for a third consecutive year.

But of more concern should be a resurrection of efforts to abolish Civil Service, a move, if successful, would leave state employees with no job security and subject to political pressure in order to keep their jobs, just like the old days of Huey Long, the spoils system and the deduct box.

And don’t dismiss the possibility; Jindal has a long memory.

Read Full Post »

DOA apparently allowed several major violations of contract through poor oversight & management of ORM privatization

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Transparency on December 12, 2011| 7 Comments »

If Gov. Bobby Jindal’s privatization pilot program is any indication, legislators might wish to take a long, hard look before allowing the governor to move forward with privatizing the Office of Group Benefits, prisons, Medicaid or education.

Former Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, signed a contract whereby F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) of Mandeville was to assume the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management. Also signing the agreement were State Risk Director J.S. “Bud” Thompson, and FARA President/CEO Todd Richard.

Now, it appears that the terms of that contract with FARA may have been violated not once, not twice, but probably three times.

Under terms of that contract, the state agreed to pay FARA “a maximum amount of $68,118,971.” In May of this year, barely 10 months later, Thompson appeared before the Joint Committee on the Budget to request an amendment to FARA’s contract in the amount of $6,811,897, or exactly 10 percent, “not to exceed $74,930,868.”

Legislators were somewhat piqued to learn to learn from ORM Assistant Director Patti Gonzales that a little-known provision allows a one-time contract amendment of up to 10 percent by the Office of Contractual Review without concurrence of the legislature. The Office of Contractual Review works directly under the supervision of the Commissioner of Administration.

Then, less than two weeks after legislators learned they had no recourse in the matter, it was learned that FARA had been sold to Avizent, a national claims and risk management service provider based in Columbus, Ohio. Obviously, the deal was already in the works at the time the amendment was executed.

Understandably, that raised the issue of whether the contract amendment was needed more to sweeten the deal for Avizent than for FARA to carry out its contractual obligations.

No sooner had the dust settled from that transaction than in November of this year it was learned that ORM, a $400 million state agency, was going to be run—for a while, at least—by York Claims Service of New York City.

York operates as an independent adjustment company and third party administrator and is a subsidiary of York Insurance Services Group of Parsippany, New Jersey.

Close on the heels of that revelation, it was learned Cherie Pinac, manager of FARA’s Baton Rouge office, had submitted her resignation to accept a position with local claims adjusting firm Hammerman & Gainer. About that same time, it was also reported that Hammerman & Gainer would be subcontracted to take over ORM’s property claims.

But under terms of Section 11.0 (“Assignment”) of the June 3, 2010, FARA contract, it is specifically spelled out that “Contractor shall not assign any interest in this contract by assignment, transfer, or novation (Novation: the substitution of a new contract for an old one or the substitution of one party in a contract with another party; the replacement of existing debt or obligation with a new one.), without prior written consent of the state. (emphasis ours).

Under terms of Section 15.0 (“Subcontractors”), it is also stipulated that “The contractor may, with prior written permission from the state, enter into subcontracts with third parties for the performance of any part of the contractor’s duties and obligations.” (emphasis ours).

With that in mind, at 6:47 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 7, we made the following written request of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater:

“Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana, R.S. 44:1 et seq., I respectfully request the following information:

Please provide me with the time, date and location at which I may view:

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) granting FARA the authority to sell, assign or otherwise convey and/or transfer its interest, oversight or ownership/management of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management under the terms of Contract No. 692289 (signed by Todd Richard, J.S. Thompson, Jr., and Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, and approved by the Office of Contractual Review on June 8, 2010) to Avizent Claims in May of 2011;

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) and/or Avizent Claims the authority to sell, assign or otherwise convey and/or transfer its interest, oversight or ownership/management of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management under the terms of Contract No. 692289 (signed by Todd Richard, J.S. Thompson, Jr., and Angéle Davis on June 3, 2010, and approved by the Office of Contractual Review on June 8, 2010) to York Claims Service of New York/New Jersey at any time during calendar year 2011;

The written consent provided by the Division of Administration to F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) and/or Avizent and/or York to subcontract or otherwise assign any portion of the operations of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management, specifically PROPERTY and/or LIABILITY lines claims to Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or any other subcontractor, said lines being inclusive of Contract No. 692289 and originally assigned to FARA.”

Rainwater apparently chose to ignore our request even though the state public records law says that any public record must be made available immediately upon request unless the record is unavailable. In such case, the custodian of the record (Rainwater) must respond within three working days to say when the record will be available for examination.

As second request was then made on Friday, Dec. 9 at 2:22 p.m.

Again, nothing.

So, at 9:17 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 11, we sent an email to David Boggs of the Office of General Counsel for the Division of Administration (DOA) asking that he kindly remind his boss of the terms of the state law as well as the civil and criminal penalties (fines, attorney fees and imprisonment of up to six months).

While making it clear that an amicable resolution was preferred, we nevertheless made it clear that we would pursue legal remedies if the records were not provided by the close of business on Wednesday, Dec. 14.

At 4:53 p.m. On Monday, Dec. 12, the following email was received from David Boggs:

“The Division of Administration has received your public records requests dated December 7 and 9, 2011. You requested three separate consent letters provided to F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. The Division of Administration has no records which are responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

David W. Boggs
Office of General Counsel
Division of Administration”

So there we have it:

• No “prior written consent” for Avizent to assume the $68.1 million, er, $74.9 million contract with the State of Louisiana to take over ORM;

• No “prior written consent” for York Claims Service to assume the contract;

• No “prior written permission” for Hammerman & Gainer to assume handling of ORM property claims.

Considering the manner in which DOA has failed to enforce the terms of the FARA contract, which are quite plain in both simplicity and intent, it should send up all kinds of red flags and set off alarms throughout the House and Senate.

In seeing the way in which Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater chose to ignore our indisputably legal requests for public records (until a lawsuit was threatened), it is abundantly apparent that there was an egregious lack of oversight in the way ORM is being run and in the fast and loose manner in which a $74.9 million contract is shuttled from one vendor to another—with no apparent authority to do so.

Several companies submitted proposals to take over the operations of ORM. Avizent was not among them. Nor was York Claims Service. Even Hammerman-Gainer, which expressed an early interest, never submitted a proposal.

Questions need to be asked:

• Why was a $6.9 million amendment to the FARA contract necessary when FARA was obviously already negotiating a deal with Avizent?

• Why did Avizent sell out to York?

• What role did the ORM contract play in those transactions?

• Why were written terms of the contract with FARA not enforced?

• How did Avizent, York and Hammerman & Gainer manage to enter into the picture?

• Should the state’s contract with FARA be revoked and/or declared null and void?

Hopefully, at least a few curious legislators will ask these—and more—questions before Bobby Jindal is allowed to privatize the entire state.

Read Full Post »

A challenge to all public officials, especially BESE members

Posted in BESE, Education, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators on December 8, 2011| 7 Comments »

At the risk of great personal embarrassment to myself (as if that would be a precedent), I would like to issue a challenge to Gov. Jindal, each of his cabinet members, every other statewide elected official (including the congressional delegation), each member of the legislature, and especially to each member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, school board members from all 64 parishes, and members of the Louisiana Board of Regents for Higher Education.

I do not make this challenge lightly and the stakes for the participants are quite high.

There is a story making the rounds about Rick Roach, a school board member in Orange County, Florida, and he is the inspiration for this proposal.

Roach holds two master’s degrees—one in education and a second in educational psychology and after learning that only 39 percent of his district’s 10th graders were reading at grade level, he decided to take the Florida standardized test in math and reading for 10th graders.

He bombed, getting 10 of 60 questions correct on the math portion of the test and getting a D in reading.

He took the risk, he said, because thousands of Florida students with grade point averages (GPA) of 3.0 or higher (on a scale of 4.0) are denied high school diplomas because they fail at least one portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Last year, he said, 41,000 kids were denied diplomas across the state, including about 70 in his district.

It wasn’t easy for him to even take the test because Florida law allows the FCAT to be taken only by students—a great way to hold students and teachers accountable while at the same time avoiding any accountability for the contents and effectiveness of the test itself.

Can you say, “level playing field?”

Roach did manage to take the test after first having to overcome the Florida bureaucracy. “I won’t beat around the bush,” he said. “The math section had 60 questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but managed to guess 10 out of the 60.” He got 62 percent on the reading test. “In our system,” he said, “that’s a ‘D,’ and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.

“I have a bachelor of science degree, two master’s degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate,” he added with more than a little irony.”

Louisiana is in the process of implementing Act 54 of 2010, a complex grading system for one-third of all teachers, principals and schools districts that incorporates language that does more to confuse the issue of teacher evaluation than clarify it. Here is a sample of the act’s verbiage:

“By the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, fifty percent of such evaluations shall be based on evidence of growth in student achievement using a value-added assessment model (standardized test scores) as determined by (BESE) for grade levels and subjects for which value-added data is (sic) available. For grades levels and subjects for which value-added data is (sic) not available and for personnel for whom value-added data is (for crying out loud, at least I can comprehend that much of the reading test: it should be data are!), the board shall establish measures of student growth. The model shall take into account important student factors, including but not limited to, special education, eligibility for free or reduced price meals, student attendance, and student discipline.”

Act 54 goes on to say, “Any teacher or administrator who fails to meet the standard of performance with regard to effectiveness shall be placed in an intensive assistance program designed to address the complexity of the teacher’s deficiencies and shall be formally re-evaluated.”

There’s more of this same gooney-babble but you get the idea: Teachers in Louisiana’s public schools will be evaluated in large part on the basis of students’ standardized test scores.

Can you say, “Oh come let us teach the test?”

After failing his test, Roach said, “If I’d been required to take those two tests when I was a 10th-grader, my life would almost certainly have been very different. I’d have been told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would probably have believed it, and looked for work appropriate for the level of ability that the test said I had.

“It certainly would be nice to see more policymakers taking the tests that they say are so perfect to assess what students are learning and how well teachers are teaching,” he added.

So, with that in mind, and with apologies to my cousin Jeff Foxworthy (actually, it is his wife who is my cousin), I would like to challenge the aforementioned public officials to prove that they are smarter than an eighth-grader. And to put my money where my mouth is, I will also volunteer to take the Louisiana eighth-grade LEAP test in the same room, at the same time, as any public official who will take my dare. I’m certain we can secure a room of sufficient size in the Claiborne Building that houses the Department of Education.

Before this goes any further, however, let’s consider some sample questions on the eighth-grade LEAP test.

English Language Arts:

• Writing—Students write a composition in response to a writing topic. Each composition is scored in two dimensions that address top development: composing and style/audience awareness. The composing dimension measures the degree to which the composition exhibits focus on a central idea, support and elaboration of the idea, organization and unity of purpose. Features of the style/audience awareness include selection of vocabulary (diction or word choice), stylistic techniques, sentence variety and tone and voice (or personality that shows in writing);

• Reading and Responding—composed of four reading passages: excerpts from novels or stories, articles from textbooks, poems and other materials appropriate for grade eight. Each reading passage is the source for four or six multiple-choice items and two short-answer items;

• Using information resources—this includes tables of contents, indexes, bibliographies, other reference sources, graphic organizers and articles;

• Proofreading.

Mathematics (This is where it gets dicey):

• Darla took a trip to her aunt’s house. Her average speed was approximately 45 miles per hour. The one-way trip took 40 minutes. How many miles did Darla drive to get to her aunt’s house? Be sure to show your work.

• On the return trip, there was heavy traffic and Darla could only drive approximately 20 miles per hour for the first 15 minutes of the trip. How fast did she have to drive, in miles per hour, for the remainder of the return trip for her driving time to be equal to 40 minutes? Be sure to show your work.

Science:

• Accompanying an illustration of nine phases of the moon are these questions: How long does it take for all the phases shown to take place? Explain why the moon looks different at different times.

• Accompanying a drawing of a light bulb and a battery are the questions: How does the form of energy change when energy moves from the battery through the wire to the light bulb? What two forms of energy are produced by the light bulb?

Finally, there is the Social Studies section and this could be really embarrassing:

• Write the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States;

• Explain why the delegates felt that it was necessary to write a constitution in 1787;

• Describe one important issue that caused disagreement at the convention;

• Explain in detail how the delegates reached a compromise to resolve this issue;

• A requirement for becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is: (A) having been born in the U.S. (B) taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. (C) singing the national anthem, or (D) reciting the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

With that in mind, here is my proposition:

• Any member of BESE or any parish school board who takes and fails to score 75 percent on the eighth-grade LEAP test must resign immediately.

• Any legislator who fails to score 75 percent on the eighth-grade LEAP test will be given a second chance—at the fourth-grade LEAP test. Should they fail to score 75 percent on that, they, too, must resign.

• All statewide elected officials who take and fails to score 75 percent on the eighth-grade LEAP test must appear on statewide television to apologize to Louisiana voters for being as dumb as a can of hair.

• If I take and fail to score 75 percent on the eighth-grade LEAP test, I will buy lunch at a restaurant of my choosing that does not have a drive-through window for every statewide elected official and/or state cabinet head who takes and scores 75 percent or higher on the eighth-grade LEAP test.

Any takers?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »