Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Legislature, Legislators’ Category

Jindal hospital privatization plans just won’t go away; Baton Rouge attorney files appeal of Huey P. Long Hospital closure

Posted in Ethics, Fraud, Governor's Office, Health Care, Huey Long, Lawsuits, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, Privatization, Senate, Transparency on April 25, 2016| 12 Comments »

There’re few feelings worse than a hangover and when the hangover contains remnants of the eight-year drunjeb privatization binge of the Bobby Jindal administration, the pain is particularly excruciating. In this case, it’s the state hospital privatization fiasco that keeps on giving us the dry heaves.

It may not rank up there with the 50-page blank contract http://www.forward-now.com/2014/01/09/as-the-la-hospital-privatization-biomed-worms-turn/ but the less-than-transparent and most probably more than a little illegal closure of one hospital has prompted a Baton Rouge attorney to file an APPEAL with the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge. His appeal follows the State Civil Service Commission’s denial of his Civil Service appeal on behalf of eight employees who lost their jobs when the Huey P. Long Hospital in Pineville.

Arthur Smith III initially also represented Edwin Ray Parker, president of Council 17 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and Brad Ott, a public hospital patient from New Orleans. Upon being informed they had no standing in a civil service matter since they were not state employees, however, they requested that their claims be dismissed.

In all, some 200 employees lost their jobs when the Jindal administration shuttered the facility on June 30, 2014.

Ott and Parker initially sued the state as soon as the closure was approved, claiming legislators did not comply with the Louisiana State Constitution in authorizing Bobby Jindal to close the LSU-run hospital. A retired state judge sitting in for the presiding judge in the case, in a curious ruling noted that the Senate violated the open meetings law when the proposed legislation was heard by its Health and Welfare Committee and said the closure was unconstitutional—but nevertheless allowed the closure to go forward. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/lsu_hospital_closure_ruled_unc.html

The open meetings law violation claim came into play when the Senate committee published a meeting notice two days before its hearing, with an agenda that did not include the hospital closure legislation. But on the afternoon prior to the meeting, a revised agenda was posted that included the legislation, a ploy most likely designed to blindside opponents of the closure by not giving them sufficient time to mount an organized opposition.

Judge Robert Downing said he made his ruling so that the matter would fast track a direct appeal to the State Supreme Court, which ultimately denied a stay order, thus allowing the closure. At the same time he sharply criticized Jindal for “turning down billions” of federal dollars through Medicaid Expansion—even as Jindal was (wink, wink) claiming the hospital closure would improve health care for the uninsured in the 16-parish area served by the hospital.

Smith filed his appeal with the First Circuit following the Civil Service Commission’s seven-page DENIAL of his civil service appeal issued on April 6.

State Civil Service Director Shannon Templet was quoted in the commission’s decision as saying a “lack of funds” was the reason for the layoff. That, of course, played directly into Jindal’s hands as he had been systematically starving health care for the indigent since long before he became governor—as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals under former Gov. Mike Foster.

In his appeal, Smith argues that the Civil Service Commission erred in approving the cooperative endeavor agreement (CEA) pertaining to the medical center by failing to comply with the rules set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Civil Service Commission v. City of New Orleans. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-supreme-court/1274405.html

Read Full Post »

As clamor increases for access to public records, some, like Lafayette city marshal, starting to learn expensive lessons

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency on April 8, 2016| 6 Comments »

Last of four-part series:

There are those isolated cases scattered across the legal landscape in which a citizen or member of the media goes to court and wins a public records case against a reticent public official but even those occasional victories in the interest of transparency are bittersweet at best.

It goes without saying anyone would rather win than lose; that’s a no-brainer. So prevailing in a case against an elected official or appointee bent on blocking the free flow of information always evokes a certain smug euphoria.

On the other hand, each victory in a public records lawsuit should prompt members of the media and governmental watchdogs alike to ask five basic questions:

  • Why was litigation necessitated in the first place?
  • Why aren’t officials more forthcoming with information?
  • Were they trying to hide something embarrassing or incriminating?
  • Or were they just being obstinate as a matter of general principle?
  • Was fighting disclosure worth the legal costs and the potential of fines for noncompliance—and even the possibility of criminal charges?

The IND, a Lafayette news organization has most likely asked each of those questions repeatedly in the case of Lafayette City Marshal Brian Pope and his determination to shield 588 pages of emails from Pope’s workstation at the Lafayette City Marshal’s office.

For his part, Pope must be dwelling on the final question: Was it worth it?

http://www.katc.com/story/30893257/independent-wins-public-records-suit-against-city-marshal

At issue is Pope’s alleged use of his office—and the city’s computer—to campaign for Lafayette Parish Sheriff candidate Chad Leger over his opponent in the October 2015 election, Mark Garber. Garber ultimately won that election.

But when The IND requested those emails, apparently withheld some records and deleted others that were nevertheless captured on the Lafayette City Government servers through which all emails to and from city departments are routed.

Fifteenth Judicial District Court Judge Jules Edwards on Dec. 14 issued an order enjoining Pope from withholding any requested records. The IND originally made its public records requests on Oct. 8 and again on Nov. 30 and on Jan. 4 of this year, Edwards ruled that Pope’s response was “woefully inadequate,” that his withholding of documents was “arbitrary,” and his failure to respond “unreasonable.” http://theind.com/article-22457-Judge-Marshal-Pope’s-response-still-‘woefully-inadequate’.html

By the time Judge Edwards was finished with Pope, the tally was nearly $100,000 in penalties (at $100 per day for each day Pope failed to respond to the requests, or $17,300), plus attorney and expert fees and court costs—and, get this: 173 hours (one hour for each day of non-compliance) of community service instructing government employees on public records law. Oh, the irony!

Just for good measure, Judge Edwards sentenced Pope to one month in jail for contempt of court, suspending all but seven days and reducing that to house arrest.

The judge’s ruling also held Pope personally responsible for all costs and penalties.

Former Lafayette City Attorney Mike Hebert testified during cross-examination that all email traffic “got routed through LCG (Lafayette City Government) servers, and thus is as much the property of LCG as it would be the marshal’s. As soon as we became custodians we became responsible for producing the records,” he added.

Pope, for his part, fell back on the tried and true “everybody does it” explanation for his using his office for political fundraising purposes. “I’m a political figure,” he said. “I can use my office for my campaign. My predecessor did it, too.” That argument apparently failed to impress Judge Edwards.

Edwards also came down hard on Pope when Pope showed up in court in uniform and armed with his handgun, both of which are contrary to Louisiana law regarding police appearing in court as defendants.

Edwards said that and his “everyone does it” defense provided “remarkable insight” into how Pope runs his office. http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/03/24/judge-sentences-lafayette-city-marshal-jail-contempt/82208738/

Appropriately enough, on April 1, Pope’s house arrest was postponed while he appeals his contempt conviction. http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/15361890-123/house-arrest-for-lafayette-city-marshal-brian-pope-postponed-during-appeal-in-public-records-case

The Lafayette case is one of the ugliest public records lawsuits in the state since the brouhaha over the LSU Board of Supervisors’ furtive selection of F. King Alexander as LSU President. But that doesn’t mean things can’t get nastier. With the explosion of Internet blogging generating more public records requests, any immovable objects (resistance or reluctance in complying) is certain to be met by the irresistible force (litigation).

Bloggers like Elliott Stonecipher, Jason France, and yours truly, along with citizens like James Finney, Barbara Ferguson, and Charles Hatfield, some members of the media, and legislators like State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard are going to keep pushing for more sunshine so long as there continues to be contracts with 50 blank pages or superficial “investigations” like the charade recently carried out by State Police in the Burl Cain and Angola State Penitentiary episode.

We are going to keep digging as long as we have officials attempting to sneak illegal retirement benefit increases into legislative bills during the closing minutes of legislative sessions. We will keep making public records requests into questionable methods of investigation and punishment carried out by autonomous boards and commissions like the State Dentistry Board and State Board of Medical Examiners. We will continue to ask questions when we observe a double standard in how we are expected to comport ourselves as citizens and how public officials are allowed to conduct themselves in their official capacities—be they agency heads, elected officials, regulatory boards and commissions or law enforcement agencies.

And when we encounter that immovable object, that resistance to transparency, we will continue to haul your butts into court until we are on a first-name basis with every judge in Baton Rouge. Reluctance or denial on your part will only strengthen the resolve on our part.

After all is said and done, we deserve two things from our government:

  • An even playing field where all live under and abide by the same rules;
  • The right to see, hear, and know that even the most obscure agency carries out its business in an upright, honest and fair manner.

We will accept nothing less.

And we shouldn’t have to sue someone to earn that right

 

 

Read Full Post »

Louisiana Department of Education does poorly combating public records requests; Rep. Richard bill seeks trasparency

Posted in Corruption, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Media, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on April 6, 2016| 6 Comments »

Second of four-part series:

When the conversation turns to public records, there’s seldom a reporter, governmental watchdog agency, or a private citizen active in the public arena who doesn’t have a personal story to tell about obstacles encountered in efforts to obtain documents.

Nowhere in state government is that more evident than in the labyrinth known as the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) and in the governor’s office over the past eight years.

And if State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard (I-Thibodaux) gets his way, his HB 166 would make records of the governor’s office more accessible to the public. HB 166

The House Governmental Affairs Committee will hold hearings on his bill Thursday at 9 a.m.

Bobby Jindal is gone and there is reason to hope for a new era of openness in the governor’s office. But across Third Street from the towering State Capitol, John White remains at DOE and if what’s past is truly prologue, to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare’s The Tempest, any fantasizing about change is just that: fantasizing.

All you have to do is ask anyone who has suffered through the process of obtaining anything of substance in the way of public records from LDOE.

Ask James Finney, Ph.D., about his efforts to get answers to his records requests.

Finney began his quest for records from White back in April 2013 and in the ensuing years has filed dozens of other public records requests with DOE, all to no avail. Finally, after giving up on getting DOE and White to comply with state law, he sued on May 22, 2015. The suit will be heard by 19th Judicial District Court Judge William Morvant, which is not necessarily good news for Finney as we shall see later. It’s also unusual for a public records lawsuit to take nearly a year for trial in that they are supposed to be put on a fast track for hearing.

FINNEY LAWSUIT

White has been taken to court at least three times in the past. He has lost no fewer than three times. In two of those three cases, monetary penalties handed down by the courts still have yet to be paid.

Barring any delays the trial in Finney’s case is set for April 29. If he prevails and if he is awarded monetary damages (and there is no reason he shouldn’t, Judge Morvant notwithstanding), he stands to reap quite a financial windfall, given the number of unmet requests and the time periods involved—all at taxpayer expense, of course.

The lone exception is LouisianaVoice, which sued and won back in 2013 and was awarded damages of $2,800 plus court costs and attorney fees. In our case, the records were produced and the monetary damages paid. But not since then.

Ask Barbara Ferguson, Ph.D. and Charles J. Hatfield.

In April of 2013, exasperated at their failure to obtained requested documents from DOE, they sued. http://www.louisianaweekly.com/research-on-reform-files-lawsuit-against-la-doe/

RESEARCH ON REFORMS LAWSUIT

Ferguson is the first female superintendent of New Orleans public schools and an attorney. Hatfield is managing partner of a company specializing in diverse information retrieval and data analysis for public opinion researches. Together, they head up a non-profit organization called Research on Reforms.

Research on Reforms was founded after Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent takeover of 107 New Orleans public schools. Ferguson agreed that the Orleans Parish School Board “was a mess.” She said she was initially “delighted” at the conversion of the schools into charter schools but soon came to the realization that things were not as they appeared, particularly with the Recovery School District (RSD).

Data requested by Research on Reforms for the ’06-’07 and the ’07-’08 school years was provided but beginning in the ’08-’09 school year, the organization began to experience roadblocks thrown up to block its requests. Among the records it did receive was one with the absurd claim that one RSD school boasted a 100 percent attendance rate.

“You don’t have 100 percent attendance at a high school, ever,” Hatfield said.

“Research on Reforms, Inc. is not interested in obtaining privileged student-level data,” the organization said on its Web site after the lawsuit was filed.

But because LDOE was providing raw data to other national reporting organizations, Ferguson and Hatfield felt they had a right to the same information.

“LDOE is becoming increasingly less transparent through its recent actions to modify its website, removing historical databases and removing actual current school enrollment counts,” the Web site said.

“Because Louisiana’s state takeover of public schools was an experiment in how to improve failing schools, data had to be collected, aggregated and analyzed to determine whether the experiment was working or not,” it said. “While the Louisiana Department of Education collected, and continues to collect, the raw student level data needed for analysis, the LDOE has developed its own rules for releasing this data.”

LDOE dug in its heels and the lawsuit proceeded to trial in Baton Rouge’s 19th Judicial District Court before District Judge…..William Morvant.

Incredulously, Morvant sided with LDOE and White that the citizens of Louisiana had no right to information about how the state’s ballyhooed school reform movement under Bobby Jindal and White was progressing or if the reforms were even remotely successful.

In effect, it was none of our business.

Fortunately, in the interest of transparency and open government, the First Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed with Morvant and on Sept. 19, 2014, it upheld Research on Reform’s appeal, reversed the lower court judge and remanded the case back to Morvant’s court for the awarding of damages. The $675 cost of Research on Reform’s appeal was assessed against LDOE.

FIRST CIRCUIT RULING ON FERGUSON

The decision by the three-judge panel was unanimous.

“We agree with the plaintiffs (Research on Reforms) that the Louisiana Public Records Law does not conflict with FERPA,” the First Circuit ruling said. FERPA is the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.

“FERPA allows an educational agency to create a record to be used for education research only if the personally-identifiable information of the students is de-identified, or that the records are coded,” the ruling continued. “According to FERPA, an educational agency can release a student’s record if the agency removes personally identifiable information and replaces it with a code….Once the document is legally created, the document becomes a public record under the Louisiana Public Records Law.

“For the reasons set forth above, this court maintains the appeal, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.”

With the issue of whether or not the records were public settled, the only remaining proceeding was the awarding of damages.

“We went back into district court and Judge Morvant was not happy he’d been reversed,” said Ferguson.

In its memorandum in support of motion for attorney fees, court costs and penalties, Research on Reforms requested that Morvant award for the trial and appeal litigation $29,779 in attorney fees and $3,121in court costs, a total of $32,850.

FERGUSON REQUESTED JUDGMENT

Research on Reforms requested the documents on Jan. 27, 2012, and LDOE did not release the documents until three years later, on Jan. 22, 2015.

L.R.S. 44:1 et seq. provides penalties for non-compliance:

  • If the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld the requested record, it may award the requester any actual damages proven by him to have resulted from the actions of the custodian. It may also award the requester civil penalties not to exceed $100 per day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays, for each such day of such failure to give notification.

Taking into account weekends and the 10 official legal holidays per year in Louisiana, there were 684 working days over the three-year period, according to the motion. At $100 per day, Research on Reforms was within its rights in asking for penalties totaling an additional $68,400—a total of $101,250 (actually, LouisianaVoice calculated 745 days, which would have increased the penalty to $74,500 in addition to court costs and attorney fees).

The Louisiana Public Records Law further says:

  • The custodian (in this case, John White) shall be personally liable for the payment of any such damages and shall be held liable in solido with the public body for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation, except where the custodian has withheld or denied production of the requested record or records on advice of legal counsel representing the public body in which the office of such custodian is located. In the event the custodian retains private legal counsel for his defense in connection with the request for records, the court may award attorney’s fees to the custodian (Emphasis added).

So, when all parties reconvened in Morvant’s courtroom on Nov. 9, 2015, what did Morvant, in his magnanimous administration of justice under Louisiana’s Public Records Law, award Research on Reforms? How did he protect the rights of Louisiana’s citizens to access public records without future unnecessary and unfair challenges while sending a message to politicians and bureaucrats that defiance of the law was not to be taken lightly?

Why, he slashed attorney fees and courts exactly by more than half, of course, to a paltry $18,121—$3,121 in court costs and $15,000 in attorney fees. (You have to wonder what Morvant’s attorney fees would have been had he been in private practice and handled this case.)

But, but…what about the $100 per day penalty, the $68,400?

Surely you jest. “It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that …Louisiana Department of Education shall pay to plaintiffs $3,121 in court costs and $15,000 in attorney fees, for a total of $18,121. Period. MORVANT GRANTED HALF OF REQUESTED FEES

No mention of penalties for LDOE’s openly defying the law. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

It would be egregious enough if that was the end of the story, but it isn’t.

Now LDOE refuses to pay the judgment.

Department legal counsel Chris Frugé informed Ferguson and Hatfield that they must now find a legislator who will introduce an amendment in the current legislative session for payment not by LDOE, but by the Legislature.

That procedure is followed in payment of judgments against the state and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) involving automobile accidents. That’s because of some misapplication of federal funds by DOTD several years ago, but that has never been the case with any other agency—and it certainly was not the case in LouisianaVoice’s $2,800 award in 2013.

Unless there is some provision that we don’t know about, that is not the law; it’s just another hoop LDOE is making citizens jump through in order to hold John White’s feet to the fire of Louisiana law.

Tomorrow: In a case in which John White was held personally liable for $49,000 in fines, attorney fees and court costs, he has chosen to ignore the court’s decision and has made no effort to pay the judgment. But that may be about to change when the plaintiff attorney unveils his fallback plan in court.

Read Full Post »

Louisiana’s Public records laws being routinely ignored by officials; lawsuits, fines increase – all at taxpayer expense

Posted in Corruption, DOA, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Media, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on April 5, 2016| 6 Comments »

First of four-part series:

Officially, it’s Louisiana Revised Statute (L.R.S.) 44:1 et seq., or informally, the Louisiana Public Records Act.

It’s a sister statute to L.R.S. 42:4.1 et seq., otherwise known as the Louisiana Open Meetings Law.

Both are state laws enacted to give us the right to examine public documents and to attend meetings of public bodies in order to know what our elected representatives and political appointees are doing that affect our lives.

But to some in positions of authority, from city marshals to the previous governor’s office, they are merely suggestions.

And that’s what’s keeping Louisiana courts a little busier these days.

Today begins a four-part installment on ways in which certain public servants circumvent or even ignore the state’s public records law.

Under L.R.S. 44:1 et seq., a public body is defined to include a “political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, advisory board, or task force thereof.”

Public records include “all books, records, writings, accounts, letters and letter books, maps, drawings, photographs, cards, tapes, recordings, memoranda, and papers, and all copies, duplicates, photographs, including microfilm, or other reproductions thereof, or any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information contained in electronic data processing equipment, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed, or retained for use in the conduct, transaction, or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty, or function which was conducted, transacted, or performed by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of this state, or by or under the authority of any ordinance, regulation, mandate, or order of any public body or concerning the receipt or payment of any money received or paid by or under the authority of the constitution or the laws of this state.”

Custodian is defined as “the public official or head of any public body having custody or control of a public record, or a representative specifically authorized by him to respond to requests to inspect any such public records.

“It shall be the duty of the custodian of the public records to provide copies to persons so requesting.

“In any case in which a record is requested and a question is raised by the custodian as to whether it is a public record, such custodian shall within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays, of the receipt of the request in writing for such record notify in writing the person making such request of his determination and the reasons therefor. Such written notification shall contain a reference to the basis under law which the custodian has determined exempts a record, or any part thereof, from inspection, copying, or reproduction.” (Emphasis added.)

Under L.R.S. 44:31, the right to examine records is clearly spelled out:

  • Providing access to public records is a responsibility and duty of the appointive or elective office of a custodian and his employees.
  • Any person may inspect, copy, reproduce, or obtain a reproduction of any public record.
  • The burden of proving that a public record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction shall rest with the custodian.

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

There is no ambiguity in the law. It’s all right there in black and white. Yet, there are those, notable of them Superintendent of Education John White, former Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols, the LSU Board of Supervisors, a city marshal, and some judges who steadfastly abide by their own set of rules that were—and are—in stark contrast to what the law enunciates in concise language that any layman can easily comprehend.

Two key words are now routinely ignored: Public, as in public records, and Servant, as in public servant.

Almost exactly three years ago, in April 2013, the Baton Rouge Advocate and the LSU Daily Reveille filed suit against the LSU Board of Supervisors to obtain a complete list of candidates for LSU President, a position awarded to F. King Alexander. After winning at the district court level, the First Circuit Court of Appeal split the baby by partially reversing 19th JDC Judge Janice Clark’s ruling that the names of all 35 candidates must be turned over to the public. The First Circuit ruled that only the four finalists for the post and not the entire 35 names must be made public. http://theadvocate.com/news/11213914-123/lsu-wins-partial-reversal-in

The First Circuit also overturned Judge Clark’s sanctions against LSU which would have had the university having to pony up some $50,000 in fines.

LouisianaVoice has participated in the running battle over public records, winning one, losing one and winning a partial victory in a third that is currently on appeal.

The first case involved a request for records from the Louisiana Department of Education. When those records were not forthcoming, we sued and won a judgment of $2,800 plus court costs and attorney’s fees. That judgment was paid by DOE shortly after the decision by Judge Clark.

We later sued the Division of Administration but our suit was tossed by District Judge Mike Caldwell who helped DOE attorneys formulate their objections from the bench. But soon we were back before Caldwell in a second public records suit that rendered a strange decision, a token slap on the wrist to Nichols who then appealed.

In that case, we had several public records request outstanding, including one in which we made our request in October 2015. On the same day we made our request, we had a state representative file an identical request through House Legislative Services. The legislator had the records in two days. In January of 2016, three months later, we still did not have the records, including the one given the legislator within two days, so we sued. Wonder of wonders, no sooner was the lawsuit served than presto! DOA hand delivered a disc containing the requested records.

Prior to trial, DOE offered to settle our case for attorney fees and court costs. We declined.

So we again entered the courtroom, again presided over by Judge Caldwell, confident that we had a solid case. According to our calculations, DOA owed fines of $100 per day for each day in which each of the requests went unanswered—a total of about $45,000. Caldwell, in his infinite wisdom, awarded us eight days on one request, or $800, plus court costs and attorney fees. He also ruled that Nichols would be personally liable, meaning a check would not be forthcoming from DOE but from her personal checking account.

Then Nichols did a curious thing: she appealed. She appealed an $800 judgment to the First Circuit. And even though Caldwell held her personally liable, the taxpayers are picking up the legal costs of her appeal and those costs aren’t cheap. But since she appealed, we did likewise, asking the First Circuit to overrule Caldwell and assess the full $45,000. Arguments have not been scheduled on the appeals but it is our contention if the lower court decision is upheld or better yet, if the appellate court decides to impose the full amount, or somewhere in between, Ms. Nichols should be required to pay her own legal costs. It was her decision, after all, to take a personal penalty up the ladder.

Tomorrow: Superintendent of Education John White personifies the contempt with which officials treat requests for public records—and adverse court judgments by concocting non-existent rules along the way that delay justice by requiring plaintiffs to jump through imaginary hoops to collect what’s owed them.

Read Full Post »

Campaign contribution reports belie claim by State Police commissioner he ceased political activity after 2013 letter; meanwhile, Senator’s bill poses a danger to civil service

Posted in Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, State Police, Transparency on March 31, 2016| 9 Comments »

State Police Commission member William Goldring claims in an email that he ceased making political contributions after he received a letter from former Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office nearly three years ago informing him of a constitutional prohibition against political activity.

Copies of campaign reports obtained by LouisianaVoice, however, indicate that four companies controlled by Goldring contributed more than $95,000 to various political campaigns subsequent to the July 3, 2013 letter.

The State Police Commission is currently wrestling with an investigation of political contributions by the Louisiana State Police Association (LSTA) even as three commission members, including Goldring, have come under scrutiny for their own contributions to political campaigns.

Meanwhile, LouisianaVoice has learned of a bill currently pending in the legislature that would repeal the constitutional prohibition against political activity not only by commission members and state police, but state civil service workers as well.

Senate Bill 76 by State Sen. Ryan Gatti (R-Bossier City) calls for a constitutional amendment to be approved by voters that would repeal the prohibition against political activity but would leave intact the prohibition against civil service employees seeking political office. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=978216

Gatti’s bill, which would require two-thirds passage of both chambers, would delete the passage of the current law that says no person shall “solicit contributions for political purposes from any classified employee or official” while leaving in the prohibition against “use or attempt to use (one’s) position in the state or city service to punish or coerce the political action of a classified employee.”

All that sounds great in theory but we also know how the subtleties of the system work. Refuse to contribute to the boss’s candidate and suddenly the employee begins to get less than favorable performance reviews. He starts getting written up for minor infractions considered insignificant before. The chances for promotion dwindle and eventually disappear altogether.

That’s precisely why Civil Service was created in Louisiana in the first place by Gov. Sam Jones (1940-1944). Gov. Earl Long (1944-1948) dismantled Civil Service in favor of the old spoils system but Gov. Jimmie Davis reinstated Civil Service during his second term (1960-1964).

It’s not enough, apparently, to siphon contributions from the lobbyists, state contractors and PACs, but now they want to bleed state employees already fearful for their jobs after the eight-year reign of terror by Bobby Jindal. To put it simply as possible, this bill would be nothing but a return to the Huey Long Deduct Box era.

While restricting political activity on the part of classified employees, civil service rules also give them protection from just the kind of coercion they will be forced to endure should Gatti’s bill succeed. And if you don’t believe that intimidation will become a reality, I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you cheap.

But back to Goldring, Freddie Pitcher and Commission Chairman Franklin Kyle, the three whose political contributions have put them in the spotlight because of their role in investigating political contributions by LSTA.

LouisianaVoice made another public records request, this one for “all correspondence from any commission members relative to any notice of resignation from the commission.”

We learned from that request that each of the three fell back on the explanation that they didn’t know the rules. That’s a thin excuse. For Pitcher who served as a district court judge and then as a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeal, pleading ignorance of the law is especially disappointing.

This is the email string we received pursuant to our request:

From: Franklin Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:15 PM
To: Freddie Pitcher Jr.
Cc: Cathy Derbonne; Lenore Feeney; Thomas Doss; lfgrafton; Donald Breaux; Calvin W. Braxton, Sr.; Bill Goldring
Subject: RE: State Police Commission / Resignation

Freddie:

 I appreciate this email, and completely understand your position.  I, too, in my first term, was appointed, sworn in, and given an extensive rule book in which to abide by.  It is a cumbersome document, but admittedly one that was provided.  I think it would behoove all new in-coming commissioners to be fully briefed on the restrictions placed upon their appointment by the Executive Director and staff so these issues will not occur in the future.  Had that been done, I am confident that this issue would have never arisen. 

 With regards to your service on the Commission, I can’t thank you enough for your time, insight, and experience in dealing with the charges of this body.  You have truly been an asset to the Commission, and a wonderful blessing to work with.  On behalf of the entire Commission and staff, I wish the best in all you do.

 Franklin Kyle, Chairman

 

From: Freddie Pitcher Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Franklin Kyle
Cc: Cathy Derbonne; Lenore Feeney; Thomas Doss; lfgrafton; Donald Breaux; Calvin W. Braxton, Sr.; bill@
Subject: Re: State Police Commission / Resignation

Dear Chairman Kyle,

After reading Bill Goldring’s email I feel compelled to weigh in on the conversation regarding Commission members making campaign contributions. Like Bill, I did not have the benefit of an orientation when I was sworn in as commission member. Nor was I made aware of such prohibition when Bill or our esteemed Chairman was made aware of the prohibition. It was not until this controversy regarding the State Trooper’s Association members questioning the use of association funds to make campaign contribution that I was made privy to the rule  through Commissioner Braxton. I then had to call Cathy to find that my name was being mentioned very prominently in a Blog that was reporting on the contribution issue. But for the last minute heads up, I would have been completely caught off guard by the reporter last week who wanted to know if I was being forced or pressured to step down from the Commission. As you may have read, I responded by stating that “I am stepping down of my on volition.”

 Now that I am fully aware of the prohibition,  I feel that I must step down as a Commission Member so I will not feel constrained in my desire to help persons who I would like to support politically. I ran for elective office twice and would not have been successful but the campaign contributions I received from my friends and supporters. 

 Like all of us who serve on the Commission, it was a fulfillment of my civic responsibility. At no time during my service was I presented with an issue where I was conflicted because a contribution I may have made. And had one presented itself I surely would have recused myself.

 I wish the Commission members and staff all the best as you carry out the charge of the Commission.

 Freddie Pitcher 

 

On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Bill Goldring wrote:

Cathy,

After reading Franklin Kyle’s letter, I felt a need to go the record to be responsive. When first asked to go on the Louisiana State Police Commission by Governor Jindal I hesitated, in that over many decades I had been asked by many governors to serve on various boards and commissions, all of which I had turned down (i.e. Louisiana Board of Regents). Only because of my keen interest and involvement and support of law enforcement for the past 30 years, did I accept. Upon joining the commission there was absolutely no orientation or rules that were given to me. Approximately 3 years ago, there was a vacancy on the commission and I was asked who might be a suitable candidate to fill the spot. I suggested a prominent businessman, Boysie Bollinger who was accepted and sworn in. Within 24 hours he resigned when his attorney informed him of a ruling forbidding anyone on the commission to make political contributions or be involved in a political campaign. Mr. Bollinger personally called me to make me aware of the ruling which I was never informed. I then called and wrote to the governors office to get a full explanation of the responsibilities of commission members, which were never given to me. Since then I have been solicited personally (orally and by mail) by hundreds of people who I have continually turned down as well as sent them a copy of my enclosed correspondence. Just a few are listed below (feel free to contact them).

U.S. SENATOR DAVID VITTER

U.S. SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU

MAYOR MITCH LANDRIEU

U.S. SENATOR WILLIAM CASSIDY

U.S. CONGRESMAN CEDRIC RICHMOND

U.S. CONGRESSMAN JOHN FLEMING

CITY COUNCILPERSONS STACY HEAD, LATOYA CANTRELL AND SUSAN GUIDRY.

 I certainly take my duties and responsibilities seriously and have abided by the framework and regulation of the commission. There is no reward or personal gain by my serving on the Louisiana State Police Commission and only do so as a civic responsibility.

 With regards,

Bill Goldring

 PS- as a final note, I fully understand rules and regulations put on state troopers, but cannot understand commission members having to adhere to same in that we do not come in contact with the public.

It’s perception, Mr. Goldring and when you’re in public service, perception is everything.

Candor is part of the equation making up perception and you haven’t been completely candid.

While Goldring did in fact cease all individual political contributions following that 2013 letter from Jindal Executive Counsel Thomas Enright, companies that he controls most certainly did not.

LETTER TO GOLDRING

Among the recipients of his corporate generosity were legislators, political action committees, State Treasurer John Kennedy, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, failed attorney general candidate John Young, Gov. John Bel Edwards, and several minor candidates.

CRESCENT CROWN CONTRIBUTIONS

MAGNOLIA MARKETING

REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION

SAZERAC

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »