Louisiana Voice

A Baton Rouge attorney has filed papers in opposition to the privatization of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) for Wednesday’s Civil Service hearing but in the process he could get two university professors teagued by Gov. Piyush Jindal.

Attorney J. Arthur Smith filed his lengthy objection on behalf of 177 OGB employees who stand to lose their jobs if the proposed takeover by Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) goes through. He reminded the Civil Service Commission that the fundamental purpose of the Civil Service system “is to prevent permanent classified employees from being subjected to adverse personnel actions based on political influence.”

Political influence on the part of the Jindal administration is precisely what he is claiming—along with offering evidence that privatization has not proven to be the panacea claimed by governmental entities that have boldly gone where Piyush is attempting to go now.

BCBS was recently announced as the winner of the state contract to take over the OGB Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) which serves some 60,000 state employees, retirees and dependents.

But two political science professors at LSU and Southern University were sharply critical of the administration’s motives for privatizing OGB and challenged the administration’s fiscal arguments in written reports.

The State Civil Service Commission will hear presentations by the administration and by opponents of the privatization proposal on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in the appropriately named Louisiana Purchase Room of the Claiborne Building on North Third Street in Baton Rouge.

Smith cited a court case—New Orleans Civil Service Commission v. City of New Orleans—in which the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the mayor and city council “do not have the unfettered discretion to potentially decimate the civil service system by eliminating all civil service positions to privatization, and, therefore, we find that checks on that discretion are necessary and authorized by the Constitution.”

That ruling also said that the city must turn over all documents and other evidence which enable the Commission to determine (1) whether and civil service employees will be involuntarily displaced from the Civil Service; and, if so, (2) whether the contract was entered into for reasons of efficiency and economy and not for politically motivated reasons.”

The Jindal administration has been conspicuously reluctant in providing “all documents and other evidence,” to the legislature as well as the media. The reason for non-disclosure, which has become almost a cliché, is the often-cited “deliberative process,” an obscure provision behind which the governor consistently hides. He pushed through the deliberative process provision shortly after becoming governor and since has boasted non-stop to the nation that he has made state government more responsive, accountable and transparent.

Smith cited several examples in which privatization has run into problems, including cost overruns, little or no cost savings, inferior service, and a lack of accountability. In many of those cases, he said, governmental entities have on occasion been forced to bring outsourced services back in-house. That has already happened with OGB once before.

He also cited what he considered to be conflicts of interest regarding BCBS. He cited contributions to Jindal of $43,500 by BCBS; $12,500 by Louisiana Health & Indemnity (BCBS’s parent company), and at least $100,000 by BCBS to the Supriya Jindal Foundation. The foundation is run by Jindal’s wife, Supriya Jindal.

Moreover, Smith said the State of Louisiana “essentially donated in excess of $1 million to Louisiana Health & Indemnity to expand and upgrade its headquarters building.” That subsidy, which produced only 22 new jobs, was approved in 2009 as an Enterprise Zone project.

Smith also said the Jindal administration has failed to prove that the proposed OGB privatization would result in increased efficiency.

He cited former OGB Director Tommy Teague as saying in March of 2010 that if OGB is dismantled, the PPO provider network, most of the agency’s extensive expertise in claims, provider services, customer service and information technology would be lost. Also lost, he said, would be the capacity to reinstate the existing self-administered PPO plan structure. Teague pointed out that OGB, in addition to providing “excellent customer service,” also holds down costs by self-administering the PPO plan.

His arguments notwithstanding, Smith’s aces are two political scientists who have weighed in on the side of OGB employees with comprehensive reports that take issue with the administration stand that privatization would be best for OGB and the state.

Albert L. Samuel, chairman of the Political Science Department at Southern University, was critical of the fiscal irresponsibility of the administration and legislature in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita which he said led to the current fiscal crisis.

“Due to federal recovery dollars as a result of the 2005 hurricanes and historically high oil prices, the (Jindal) administration inherited a budget surplus of nearly $2 billion. During its first year in office, the administration and its legislative allies swiftly passed a series of large tax cuts and spent millions of dollars in one-time money on road projects, deferred maintenance at state colleges and universities, levee improvements, coastal restoration projects and upgrades to Pennington Biomedical Center,” he said. “Perhaps most notably, Gov. Jindal signed a repeal of the Stelly Tax Plan which provided a substantial tax savings for upper-income Louisianians.”

When the 2008 financial crisis struck, however, Samuel noted that rather than reconsidering the deep tax cuts that were enacted in previous years, Jindal “held steadfastly to (his) conservative ideals.” Jindal, he said, “adamantly opposed every attempt on the part of legislators to deal with the financial crisis through tax increases.”

“Consistent with that Naomi Klein calls ‘The Shock Doctrine,’ the governor capitalized on the financial crisis of the state to advance an agenda that called into the question the rationale for government to perform basic services on a wide range of issues.”

Samuel concluded his 21-page report by saying that political motivations “are driving the Jindal administration’s push to privatize the Office of Group Benefits.

“It locates Gov. Jindal squarely on the cutting edge of a national Republican party, determined to pursue this course without making a clear and convincing case that OGB, as currently constituted, has failed to provide quality service and coverage to its plan members at reasonable costs to taxpayers.

“The proposed privatization cuts to the heart of the fundamental rationales for having a civil service system in the first place—the idea of protecting state government workers from dismissal driven by politics.”

LSU political science professor Belinda Creel Davis cited from Shrinking the State: The Political Underpinnings of Privatization, a book by Harvey Feigenbaum, Jeffrey Henig and Chris Hamnett who said that privatization “is a political tool having the end goal of realigning institutions and decision-making in order to privilege the goals of one group over another.”

Davis cited the privatization of Louisiana’s Medicaid program as “an excellent example” of the difficulty in evaluating the effectiveness of privatization, specifically citing Jindal’s reluctance to approve legislative oversight of privatization programs.

“The Louisiana Legislature has passed bills in the 2011 and 2012 sessions that were designed to give legislators more information on the way the Jindal administration is implementing health care programs for the poor via private health care firms.

“For the second year in a row, Gov. Jindal has vetoed the bills, claiming they were unnecessary and duplicative since the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) issues extensive evaluations.

“It is interesting to note that his veto message does not claim that the report issued by DHH provides all or even most of the information sought by legislators. In the 2012 session, Senate Bill 569, seeking greater transparency on this matter passed unanimously in the House and Senate. Legislators seeking transparency regarding implementation must find the reports lacking if they have sought additional information, but they are unable to access the information they seek—resulting in a more difficult accountability process under privatization than you would see under government provision of the service.

“This is exactly the type of consequence systemic privatization predicts,” she said.

“In my opinion, as a scholar of public policy and government, privatization is an inherently political process. The evidence from both national and state studies supports this view. I believe the case before you is a clear case of politically motivated privatization.”

Those are the kinds of statements, bold and insightful as they may be, that seem to get people teagued these days.

Teagueing, after all, is the one activity in which this administration is abundantly transparent and open.

Read Full Post »