Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public Records’ Category

State Judges send Jindal resolution opposing sale of OGB

Posted in OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Public Records, Transparency on April 9, 2011| 2 Comments »

Opponents of the proposed privatization of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) got two major boosts last week, first when Wall Street international banking firm Goldman-Sachs appeared to be having second thoughts about its involvement and later when state judges weighed in to oppose the sale.

Both developments could pose major jolts to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s efforts to place OGB on the auction block.

As opposition to the sale of the agency, along with its $500 million accrued surplus grows, Jindal is encountering ever-mounting opposition to his plan. Virgil Orr, retired vice president at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston and a former state representative, has fired off a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell seeking legal guidance in fighting the sale.

Judges from across the state attended a two-day conference at the Hilton Lafayette and Towers in Lafayette on Thursday and Friday of last week and the judges, who are themselves members of Group Benefits, adopted a formal resolution that was forwarded to Jindal asking him to reconsider the sale.

Earlier in the week, Goldman-Sachs appeared to balk at accepting a $6 million contract to assess the value of OGB and to find a buyer for the agency after having helped to write the specifications for a request for proposals (RFP) and subsequently becoming the only bidder on the RFP.

Formal opposition, of course, is no guarantee of success with the Jindal administration. In 2008, both the Louisiana Municipal Association and the Louisiana Police Jury Association objected to Jindal’s signing Act 433 into law. The Consumer Choice for Television Act allowed AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises from city councils, parish councils or police juries. In effect, the act removed from local and parish governmental entities their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles.

Despite the fervent opposition from the municipal and parish associations, Jindal signed the act into law.

AT&T subsequently contributed $250,000 to Jindal’s wife’s charitable foundation, the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.

Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Kitty Kimball reportedly was in attendance at the judges’ Lafayette conference.

Members of the judges association’s Legislative Committee include Chairman Bob Morrison of the 21st Judicial District Court (Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena), Raymond Childress of the 22nd JDC (St. Tammany and Washington), Rosemary Ledet of the Orleans Civil District Court, Mary Becnec of the 40th JDC (St. John the Baptist), Ford Stinson, Jr. of the 26th JDC (Bossier and Webster), Jay McCallum of the 3rd JDC (Lincoln and Union), Toni Higginbotham of the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court, Scott Crichton of the 1st JDC (Caddo), Harry Randow of the 9th JDC (Rapides), and Mike Canaday of the 14th JDC (Calcasieu).

The wording of the resolution was not immediately available but Capitol News Service has submitted a formal public records request of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and Jindal’s office for a copy of the resolution and any letter that may have accompanied it to the governor’s office.

A similar request was made for any reports generated by Chaffe and Associates of New Orleans after it was awarded a contract for $49,999.99 (one penny less than the amount that would require approval of the Office of Contractual Review) to provide preliminary figures about OGB assets in time for Jindal to submit his proposed 2011-2012 budget.

Despite reports that Chaffe submitted a report draft, Rainwater’s office has twice denied that any such documents have been received by his office. One report also said that the legislative auditor’s office had also been denied access to the Chaffe report if it does, in fact, exist.

Goldman-Sachs, after news stories about its involvement in both writing the specifications for the RFP and then submitting the only proposal, reportedly told the Division of Administration (DOA) during a conference call last Monday that it would opt out of the $6 million contract unless the state agreed to indemnify the banking giant from liability from any litigation arising from the proposed sale of the agency.

Such an agreement would expose OGB to legal liability and require the state on the one hand to spend money to defend an agency that, on the other hand, the state is trying to dismantle.

When told the state would not agree to those terms, representatives of Goldman-Sachs said they would have to check with their legal department and get back to DOA officials.

As of Friday, Goldman-Sachs had not called state officials back.

There are reports circulating around the state that at least two groups, possibly three, are considering filing class action lawsuits against Jindal, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, the Legislature, and OGB to stop the planned sale. One of those is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Orr, contacted in Ruston, said he had sent a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to explore legal options open to members of Group Benefits.

“I asked the attorney general to advise us on three questions:

“What is the legality of Jindal’s proposal to sell Group Benefits? What course of action is open to us if Jindal’s proposal is not legal? And what should we do if it is legal?”

R.S. 42:854.5(A) says, in part, “any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes.” (emphasis added.)

Under Jindal’s plan, the state would take $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus to help plug the gaping $1.6 billion state budget deficit with the purchaser of the agency getting the remainder.

Orr said he was concerned with the direction Jindal is taking the state in his efforts to privatize state prisons and OGB. The Office of Risk Management was privatized last July at a contract cost of $68 million to the state but F.A. Richard and Associates, the firm that submitted the winning bid and was awarded the contract, has already requested a $7 million contract amendment.

Read Full Post »

Jindal trips, church fundraisers, and nailing Jell-O to a wall

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, Public Records, Transparency on March 24, 2011| 1 Comment »

Trying to obtain what are clearly public records from Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office is somewhat akin to trying to nail Jell-O to a wall but CNS has succeeded in obtaining some information from his deputy executive counsel, albeit somewhat confusing and perhaps incomplete data.

Deputy Executive Counsel Elizabeth Baker Murrill provided the records while implying that the governor’s staff was doing Capitol News Service a favor in being forthcoming with the information because, she said, there was no legal mandate to “manufacture and compile information in response to a request.”

The Louisiana Public Records Act, however, says precisely the opposite.

Murrill also said campaign-related records “are not public records.” Jindal, however, was fined $2,500 in 2008 for failing to report more than $100,000 in campaign expenditures on his behalf by the Louisiana Republican Party.

In responding to the specific request by CNS for an accounting of the number of days Jindal was out of state during 2010 on personal campaign fundraisers, campaigning for other Republican candidates, or promoting his book, Leadership and Crisis, Murrill provided 17 separate emails from press secretary Kyle Plotkin detailing the governor’s itinerary.

While Jindal has been admonished for his frequent out-of-state trips by critics who say he should be spending more time in-state attending to the impending $1.6 billion budget deficit, he also has been just as active—maybe even more so—in his recurrent Sunday morning trips to Protestant church services, particularly in north Louisiana.

Federal laws forbid political activity on the part of churches and also prohibit fundraising activities in churches by political candidates. Violations could result in the loss of a church’s tax-exempt status but Jindal apparently is not shy about skirting the ragged edges of the law.

A visit to one north Louisiana church reveals just how far he is willing to go in flirting with IRS sanctions against host churches kind enough to allow him to “witness” to their congregations about his Christian conversion.

The identities of the town and church are relatively unimportant to the facts of the story, so we will save them that embarrassment. But the story, as told by a member of the congregation bears repeating. We’ll call him Sam for the purposes of this story.

The pastor one Sunday told his flock that they would be visited by the governor the following Sunday. “I decided right then that I was not going to miss the next Sunday,” Sam said. “The next Sunday as I sat and listened to the malarkey of his life story, I sensed something going on at the pew to my left. I looked and saw that a clipboard with a sign-in sheet was being passed around.”

The sheet, he said, contained spaces for attendees’ names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. “They weren’t one bit shy about it,” Sam said. “They were compiling information to key into a campaign data bank so they could call these people back later to solicit votes and campaign contributions.”

He said at the close of services, the pastor informed the congregation that Jindal would have a meet and greet session at the parish sheriff’s firing range. “I went to that, too, and that’s where the contributions were being solicited,” Sam said. “Big time. They were very open about asking for contributions.”

Sam admitted that he has never been a fan of Jindal. “I can’t stand him. But I have to give it to him: he’s slick.”

In-state travel notwithstanding, the emails provided CNS by Jindal’s office revealed 17 out-of-state trips totaling 30 days. The first trip was for three days, beginning on Feb. 19. On that date, he traveled to Washington, D.C. for the National Governors’ Association’s winter meetings and the Republican Governors’ Association meeting. He returned on Feb. 22.

He didn’t travel out-of-state again until Sept. 17, when he attended campaign rallies in Pensacola, Orlando, and Jacksonville for Rick Scott in his successful campaign for governor of that state. Jindal also attended fundraisers in Pensacola and St. Petersburg before returning to Baton Rouge that same day.

There were no trips reported by the governor’s office between Feb. 17-22 and Sept. 17. The April 20 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occupied much of his on-camera face time during that period and the leak was finally stopped on Sept. 19 just in time for his jaunt to Cincinnati on Sept. 20-21 to attend the Republican Governors’ Association Policy Summit.

Other trips listed by Murrill included:

• Sept. 24—Fundraisers in Fresno and San Diego in support of unsuccessful California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman: 1 day;

• Oc. 4—Fundraiser for the Georgia Republican Party in Atlanta: 1 day;

• Oct. 8—Fundraiser for his own reelection campaign on Oct. 8; campaign stop for successful U.S. Senate election campaign of Roy Blunt; later that same day, Jindal and family attended his brother’s wedding in St. Louis: 3 days;

• Oct. 13—Campaign rally in Tampa, Fla., for Marco Rubio’s successful U.S. Senate campaign: 1 day;

• Oct. 14—Fundraiser in Portsmouth, N.H., on behalf of John Stephen’s unsuccessful campaign for governor of New Hampshire. Also attended fundraiser in support of his own reelection. On Oct. 15, Jindal traveled to New York City to attend meetings of the Republican Governors’ Association: 2 days;

• Oct. 18—Fundraiser in Milwaukee in support of Ron Johnson’s successful campaign for U.S. Senate. Also traveled to Madison, WI to attend fundraiser for Scott Walker’s successful campaign for governor: 1 day;

• Oct. 21—Houston fundraiser for Bill Flores’s successful campaign for Congress: 1 day;

• Oct. 22—Pittsburgh fundraiser for Tom Corbett’s successful campaign for governor of Pennsylvania: 1 day;

• Oct. 26—Fundraiser in Hobbs for Susana Martinez’s successful campaign for governor of New Mexico: 1 day;

• Oct. 27—Newton campaign rally for Terry Branstad’s successful campaign for governor of Iowa; Milwaukee, WI, for fundraiser for Scott Walker; Homer Glen campaign appearance on behalf of unsuccessful Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady: 1 day;

• Nov. 14-23—New York City appearances on the Today Show and Fox and Friends to promote book, Leadership and Crisis. Several interviews scheduled before departing on Nov. 16 for San Diego for the Republican Governors’ Association annual conference; reelection fundraiser on Nov. 19 in Los Angeles; Nov. 20 speech at Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara before flying to Washington, D.C. for media interviews for his book. Return to Baton Rouge on Nov. 23: 8 days;

• Dec. 10—Reelection fundraiser in New York City: 1 day;

• Dec. 15-16—Two reelection fundraisers in Dallas; on Dec. 16 reelection fundraisers in San Antonio and Houston: 2 days.

The cost of all this travel? Well, it depends on where you go for answers. The report provided by Murrill indicates that $65,898.85 was spent for something. The printout itemizes 34 separate payments between Jan. 8 and Dec. 23but only three dates of those payments appear to match up with travel dates provided by Murrill.

The Associated Press, however, puts the cost at $134,000 with more than $75,000 of that amount for his own reelection fundraising appearances.

AP provided a factor that was not provided by Murrill, the cost of paying for state police protection during his trips.

At a time when statewide budget cuts have forced state police to cease training courses for new troopers, state law requires the governor to have police protection at all times, even while traveling for political campaign appearances.

One administration spokesperson said that police protection costs should not be factored in because the governor must have state police protection whether he’s traveling or in Baton Rouge.

That may be but one still has to wonder where the governor’s real priorities are these days.

Read Full Post »

Public records? We don’t need no stinkin’ public records

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Ethics, Governor's Office, Public Records, Transparency on March 19, 2011| Leave a Comment »

If one has a fetish for dizzying double-talk and head-spinning subterfuge, the office of the governor of Louisiana is the place to be. If that is impractical, as it is for most of us, then an attempt to communicate with Bobby Jindal’s office would probably rate a close second.

Capitol News Service (CNS) recently made such an attempt and the results would have been comical were it not for the fact that this is supposed to be the office of state leadership and inspiration. But if your idea of leadership and inspiration is Larry, Moe, and Curly, then you would probably find the results satisfying and fulfilling.

First of all, let’s be clear on two points right up front: one should never expect promptness in getting an answer and when you do get a response, don’t expect an intelligent answer.

We started in January with our attempts to obtain an accounting of the number of days that Gov. Jindal was absent from the state during 2010 for campaign appearances on behalf of other Republican candidates, for his own campaign fund raisers, and for promotions of his book, Leadership and Crisis.

That’s it. How many days was the governor out of the state during 2010? Period.

The request seemed simple enough for our purposes. Little did we know we needed to dumb it down for the governor’s office.

After four more official requests, we finally received a response but only after we found it necessary to give his staff a refresher course on the Louisiana Public Records Law. And even then, the response was mystifying.

A letter dated March 4 arrived by email from Deputy Executive Counsel Elizabeth Baker Murrill. In her letter, she demanded a check in the amount of $5. Okay, that’s not going to break us. We’ll pay that.

In her letter, she made a vague reference to “privilege, exception, exemption, or other limitations” and then alluded to financial records for campaign-related travel, which she said were not kept in the governor’s office.

Now, any paper shuffler in a position as high as deputy executive counsel to the governor should know that a simple accounting of the number of days the governor was gone from the state is in no way subject to “privilege, exception, exemption, or other limitations.”

Moreover, not once did CNS request financial records for campaign-related travel in any shape, form or fashion. Not once.

So, we dutifully remitted our $5 check along with a letter or our own. In our letter, we reminded Ms. Murrill that we were not seeking a financial accounting of the campaign trips—just the number of campaign trips on behalf of other candidates, book promotion trips, and personal campaign fundraising trips. That’s all.

We subsequently received a letter dated March 11 by traditional mail. In that letter she said, “On March 3, we notified you that the public records we could locate that were responsive to your requests were ready to be copied or reviewed.”

Well, first of all, it was March 4, not March 3, that I was first contacted by Ms. Murrill and secondly, the only records she said were available at that time was a list and cost of state-issued cell phones in use by the governor’s staff. That was in an earlier, separate request and the information had been previously provided. Maybe she was just having a bad day.

But then she reiterated, “We further advised that we do not have custody of campaign-related records, which are not public records.”

Besides her insistence on her office’s not having records for which we never asked, she is dead wrong in the last part of that sentence. Campaign expenses certainly are public record. In fact, politicians have been fined for failure to be forthcoming with complete campaign finance reports. Gov. Jindal himself was the subject of one of those fines. In 2008, he paid a $2,500 fine for his failure to report more than $100,000 spent on his behalf by the state Republican Party.

Let us know how that non-public campaign records theory works out for you, Ms. Murrill.

She then said, “Your requests seek a compilation of information, some of which is not contained in public record. Moreover, a legal mandate to manufacture and compile information in response to a request is not required pursuant to the public record laws. Nevertheless, in an effort to be cooperative, we searched for records that might be responsive to your request.”

Again, we beg to differ, Ms. Murrill. Nothing we requested would fall outside the definition of public record. And as far as a “legal mandate” to manufacture and compile information in response to a request “not being required pursuant to the public records laws,” we can only suggest that you take a remedial law course–or perhaps Civics 101– because again, you are dead wrong. You might start with a thorough reading of LA. R.S. 44:1-41. That should clear up any questions you might have about the public records law.

Then, along with what appears to us to be an incomplete accounting of the number of out-of-state trips the governor made during 2010, Ms. Murrill inexplicably included three pages that contained some type of financial accounting. There was no explanation, so there is no way of knowing what the payments, which totaled $65,898.85, were for.

With this kind of stellar legal advice, one would have to wonder what’s in store for the state as this administration continues to blunder its way through its bizarre policy decisions like selling off state assets in exchange for a quick but oh-so-temporary financial fix.

Just don’t bother the governor with pesky public records requests.

After all, when staffers questioned the legality of a proposed action by the Division of Administration last year, they were told, “Don’t be bound by the law.”

Read Full Post »

What is LED hiding from state auditors?

Posted in Auditor, Economy, Governor's Office, Public Records, Transparency on March 16, 2011| 1 Comment »

It’s one thing when a news reporter encounters resistance from a state agency in obtaining public records. It’s quite another when the legislative auditor’s office cannot get its hands on crucial documents when conducting an audit of that agency.

Yet, that’s precisely what happened with the “most ethical, most transparent administration” when state auditors tried to examine the Discretionary Incentive Programs of the Louisiana Department of Economic Development (LED).

The audit report focused on three discretionary incentive programs of LED: Mega Project Development (Mega Fund), Rapid Response Fund (RRF), and the Economic Development Award Program (EDAP)/Economic Development Loan Program (EDLOP).

The Mega Fund is a special fund created to fund large-scale economic development projects to secure the creation or retention of jobs.

The RRF is also a special fund created within the State Treasury for the immediate funding of economic development projects that may be necessary to secure the creation or retention of jobs. RRF project funding requires the approval of the governor and the LED.

EDAP’s purpose is to finance publicly-owned infrastructure for business development projects that require state assistance. EDLOP is a program that provides loans for site and/or infrastructure improvements for projects. Its purpose is to assist in financing privately-owned property and improvements to promote economic development.

The audit report did not cite any financial irregularities, but five pages into the report the problem of obtaining needed documents from LED was addressed.

“R.S. 24:513(I) states that the legislative auditor’s authority to audit extends to all documents, records, and files, whether confidential or otherwise,” the report said. “However, throughout the audit, LED resisted fulfilling some of our document requests and never gave us complete, unfettered access to all documentation. For example, LED reviewed files for all three programs before allowing us to see them. For RRF and Mega Fund files, LED would not provide some of its internal analyses used in decision-making processes concerning whether to offer awards to specific businesses.”

Auditors said two meetings were held with LED Secretary Stephen Moret. In addition, the legislative auditor sent two letters requesting unfettered access to records. “However, LED cited workload issues and legal concerns in not wanting to provide us with documents,” the report said. While unfettered access to records was never granted, LED eventually provided auditors with specific documents but only in response to specific questions on each objective, a practice auditors said limited the effectiveness of their audit. “For example, problems with programs may exist at LED that we were not able to identify because of lack of access to information in files. Also, we cannot know to what extent documentation furnished us may have been compromised or is incomplete,” auditors said in their report. “In addition, these access problems also affect the efficiency of our work as the audit took longer than planned.

“According to state law (R.S. 24:513), LED should furnish all documents and files requested by the legislative auditor. LED officials should work to ensure that LED provides requested information in a timely manner when requested by the legislative auditor,” the report said.

Moret, the $320,000-a-year LED secretary, said in his response to the report that requested information should be provided but he did so with a caveat: “LED agrees that it should provide requested information, including documents and files, in a timely manner when requested by the legislative auditor in accordance with state law, including…constitutional separation of powers, and lawful privileges, as recognized in Kyle v. Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC).”

In that case the Public Service Commission withheld documents from state auditors in 2003 until documents could be reviewed “to determine whether or not they contained privileged communications,” Moret said. “This action taken by the commission’s counsel was reasonable, and probably required. Our review of the cases leaves no doubt that the LPSC has the right to assert both the attorney-client and the deliberative process privileges to prevent access to its records.”

Moret added that LED “acted per state law in providing requested information to the legislative auditor for this audit, and made it a priority to provide information to the legislative auditor as quickly as possible. Specifically, LED worked diligently to provide the legislative auditor with files on over 40 EDAP/EDLOP, Mega Fund, and Rapid Response projects identified as part of the audit.

“In summary,” Moret said, “the legislative auditor had access to all pertinent LED documents and a detailed body of publicly available information for the projects included in its audit. LED worked to ensure that the files were made available to the audit team in a timely manner,” he said.

The furor might well mean little were it not for Gov. Bobby Jindal’s repeated insistence at fundraisers throughout the U.S. that he has created the most transparent administration in the nation and that he has strengthened the state’s ethics laws.

The otherwise obscure controversy might give one pause to wonder what it is the administration does not want the legislative auditor—or the public—to know. How sensitive can economic development efforts really be, after all?

In fact, the LED web page touts what it considers to be three major reasons for an industry or business to relocate to Louisiana and one of those is that the state is “First in ethics disclosure laws.”

Read Full Post »

Money and politics: old song, different verse

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Public Records, Supriya Jinda Foundation, Transparency on March 12, 2011| Leave a Comment »

He insists he has the job he wants.

He insists he does not plan to run for president in 2012, though he has not mentioned the vice presidency or even the U.S. Senate.

There is no Democratic opposition anywhere on the horizon to his re-election to the governor’s office next fall. Republican State Treasurer John Kennedy, though, is sounding more and more like a candidate with each passing day.

Part of the reason for the lack of opposition is the massive war chest Jindal has at his disposal. To date, he has $9 million and counting.

Running for governor of Louisiana is not cheap. In 2007, some $26 million was spent by three candidates with Jindal accounting for $11 million of that.

So perhaps that is the reason that Jindal has been traveling all over the country to attend fundraisers instead of staying in Baton Rouge and focusing his attention to the looming $1.6 billion deficit facing the state.

Campaign expenses, as any political observer knows, long ago removed government policy decisions from the best interests of the rank and file citizenry to the New York corporate boardrooms of oil and pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street bankers.

The office of the governor of Louisiana, sadly, is no exception. It’s for sale just like any other political office.

For proof of that, one need only look at the correlation between contributions to the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children and fat state contracts.

While the motives of Jindal’s wife may well be above reproach, any corporate CEO worth his bonus can readily see the advantage of making a generous contribution to the foundation. Take Northrop Grumman, for example. Northrop Grumman made a generous contribution of $10,000 to the foundation. Was it coincidence that Northrop Grumman soon received a three-year, $11.4 million contract with the Department of Social Services to provide support services for the statewide software network.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana got an even better return on its investment of $100,000. Blue Cross/Blue Shield subsequently was awarded a $400 million contract to provide health coverage for state employees and retirees in a bidding process that attracted the attention of a Baton Rouge judge.

Humana had held the contract and promptly filed suit, saying that the contract awarded Blue Cross/Blue Shield was not what was bid on. Mike Caldwell, a judge in the 19th Judicial District, agreed and ordered the state re-bid the contract.

AT&T also reaped benefits from its contribution, getting several contracts for providing cellular phone service for state-issued cell phones and for telecommunication services for the state’s land line system.

All these factors make campaigning for office a high-stakes game and leaves politicians beholden to their benefactors. And that runs up the costs of running for office. That, in turn, leaves small contributors out of the loop when it comes to policy making. It certainly gives credence to the old but bitter joke about having the best government money can buy.

Just last week, Jindal was out of state once more to attend yet more fundraisers.

Attempts by Louisiana Voice to obtain travel records for Jindal during 2010 were at first ignored for nearly two months. Emails to Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin went unanswered. Finally, earlier this month, the governor’s office responded that it did not keep records on campaign travel costs. Those records are kept by Jindal’s campaign, his office said.

The only problem with that response is financial records were never a part of the request–not that they won’t be at some point in the future. But this time, the only thing being sought was the number of days the governor spent on travel. Those records have yet to be made available.

So much for his claims of having the most-open, most-ethical administration in Louisiana history. So much for his claims of strengthening the state’s political ethics.

The latest fundraisers, in Dallas and Houston, are part of a continuing trend of out-of-state fundraising by the governor that has left some clearly dissatisfied with Jindal’s repeated absences from the state. It might even appear that some of the luster has faded from the Jindal image of boy wunderkind.

One person, responding to the latest soiree into another state to raise campaign funds, said, “I can’t wait to learn who is running against him so I know who I am voting for.”

Said another: “So nice that Texans care so much about Louisiana to donate.”

A third asked the rhetorical question, “Who knew Texans cared who is our governor? Here’s an idea: they can have him.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »