Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘State Agencies’ Category

Expectations of State Police Commission report on LSTA campaign contribution probe die with a pitiful whimper

Posted in Boards, Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Commissions, Corruption, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lobbyist, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, State Police, Transparency on July 14, 2016| 5 Comments »

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.”

–Alexander Pope

The so-called “investigation” by the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) into the laundering of campaign money by the Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) through the association’s executive director turned into a major sham that only served to reinforce the old adage that crap flows downhill.

But the good news is state civil service employees may now pursue a method whereby they can make their own heretofore verboten political campaign contributions.

Hyped for two weeks as an investigation that would “name respondents” for the association’s deliberate circumvention of state regulations prohibiting political activity on the part of individual state troopers, the “report” of Natchitoches attorney Taylor Townsend, hired to conduct the investigation and to make recommendations back to the commission, was a major dud in every respect.

His recommendation at Thursday’s (July 14) meeting: Do nothing. Punt. Abdicate the commission’s responsibility.

The term “deliberate” is not used lightly here. It was, after all, LSTA Executive Director David Young, in whose name more than $45,000 was contributed to various political candidates, including Gov. John Bel Edwards, who told the commission that the campaign contributions were made through him in order that “there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution.” Young said he wrote the checks, dating back to 2003 and the association would reimburse him. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/01/15/louisianavoice-exclusive-at-long-last-it-can-be-disclosed-that-the-reason-for-all-the-problems-at-state-police-is-us/

For two weeks, word has circulated that Townsend’s report would name names and would be sharply critical of the association’s practice.

There is even word of an audio tape at a contentious meeting of association members from Troop I in Lafayette at which it was disclosed by association representatives that LSTA officers made the decision as to whom would receive campaign contributions.

That tape was never mentioned in Townsend’s brief “report” on Thursday (July 14). Nor were any names given as those directly responsible for the decision to contribute campaign money to candidates.

Instead, Townsend said the commission has no jurisdiction over the association or over Young. While that was an accurate assessment openly acknowledged before Townsend was ever brought on board, it was also acknowledged prior to his being hired that the association did have investigative and disciplinary powers over individual state troopers found in violation of state law. And while Townsend was quick to absolve the commission of any responsibility for Young and the association, he conveniently neglected to bring up the commission’s responsibility for enforcement of laws and regulations when individual state trooper actions are involved.

Because the LSTA is a 501(c) non-profit charitable organization, it is free, under certain restrictions, to make political contributions. So, by having Young make personal contributions in his name and then filing an expense report, the LSTA conveniently bypasses state law by funneling money to political candidates through Young.

Carrying his verbal report to its obvious conclusion, state civil service employees may need no longer worry about a similar prohibition against their making campaign contributions. All they have to do is form an association and get IRS approval of their status as a 501(c).

Of course, while state police have received two recent pay increases totaling 50 percent in some cases (and, by the way, they still want more), state civil service workers have been routinely denied even their paltry 4 percent annual merit increases for more than five years now, so they, unlike their fortunate state trooper counterparts, could hardly be expected to afford to make token campaign contributions.

So, the question is how is it that an investigation which only a couple of weeks ago seemed almost certain to result at least in suspensions for identical infractions that forced three of the LPSC members to resign since April was suddenly rendered impotent? https://louisianavoice.com/2016/04/14/two-more-members-of-lspc-quit-over-political-contributions-while-pondering-probe-of-lsta-for-same-offense/

To find the answer to that, one must go right to the top—the man who ran on the strength of his West Point Code of Honor.

It was John Bel Edwards who reappointed State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, most likely solely on the strength of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association insistence.

Asked by LouisianaVoice on Oct. 27, 2015, at 10:57 a.m. (before he took the oath of office) what his intentions were regarding the reappointment of Edmonson Edwards professed he had no intentions either way:

Please tell me your intentions as to the re-appointment of Mike Edmonson.

 

Tom Aswell

LouisianaVoice

 

From: John Bel Edwards

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:50 PM

To: Tom Aswell  

Subject: Re: QUESTION

 

I don’t intend one way or the other

Being as charitable as possible, we now are forced to speculate that Edwards was being less than truthful at the time.

Edmonson was Bobby Jindal’s boy so why would Edwards feel obligated to keep him on? The LSTA even drew the line and said no to Edmonson’s request to have the association write a letter to Edwards recommending his reappointment.

Well, before he was Bobby Jindal’s boy, he was the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association’s boy. The Sheriffs’ Association wanted him to stay around because he is easily controlled and manipulated by the sheriffs.

The Sheriffs’ Association endorsed Edwards when the outcome of his runoff election against U.S. Sen. David Vitter was still in doubt. He needed that endorsement and the condition that went with the endorsement was that Edwards would keep their boy on. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/16/lsp-unable-to-locate-sergeants-critical-letter-warning-of-danger-edmonson-is-reappointed-by-gov-elect-edwards/

And don’t forget that Daniel Edwards is Sheriff of Tangipahoa Parish—and an influential member of the Sheriff’s Association—and probably has more than a little influence with his brother, the governor.

Consequently, anything that might implicate—or even embarrass—Edmonson would, by extension, embarrass Gov. Edwards and the Sheriffs’ Association. Accordingly, the report by former State Sen. Taylor Townsend had to be watered down or even killed.

In short, everyone simply circled the wagons.

And that’s now what we were led to expect from one who espouses the West Point Code of Honor.

(Note to self: Stop expecting.)

Read Full Post »

Mike Edmonson’s appointment not official yet; Senate committee set to consider his confirmation on Tuesday

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Senate, State Agencies, State Police on May 16, 2016| 8 Comments »

The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee will meet Tuesday at 11 a.m. to consider confirmation of Gov. John Bel Edwards’ reappointment of Mike Edmonson as State Police Superintendent just as a complaint has been filed with the State Police Commission by a retired state trooper.

Even though Edmonson has been superintendent for eight years, going back to the beginning of the Bobby Jindal administration, his reappointment for another term must be meet the approval of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee just as other gubernatorial appointees must pass muster with the committee.

Butch Browning’s reappointment as State Fire Marshal was confirmed by the committee last week.

The Edmonson confirmation hearing on Tuesday stands as the most controversial of all appointments by Edwards despite his having already served eight years as superintendent.

That’s because of reports of inconsistent and uneven discipline meted out for certain offenses to only token punishment for offenses ranging from abetting underage gambling to quotas for DWI arrests to payroll fraud to stalking by a trooper to a state trooper having sex in his patrol car while on duty—all documented by LouisianaVoice.

All those revelations came on the heels of LouisianaVoice’s story in 2014 about an attempt orchestrated by Edmonson to pad his retirement by about $30,000 a year despite his having locked in his pension years earlier.

Generous retirement benefit boost slipped into bill for State Police Col. Mike Edmonson on last day of legislative session

That attempted came when Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) slipped an amendment onto SB 294 by Sen. Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans) during the closing minutes of the 2014 legislative session. Morrell’s bill originally was a benign bill dealing with procedures for formal, written complaints made against police officers. Thirty-seven senators and 90 members of the House, including then-Rep. John Bel Edwards, voted in favor of the amendment.

Reps. John Bel Edwards and Kevin Pearson will request investigation of Edmonson retirement amendment source

And now comes retired State Trooper Scott Perry with his official complaint to the State Police Commission over the appointment of Maj. Jason Starnes as Interim Undersecretary of Management and Finance.

The problem with his appointment is that Starnes’s estranged wife, Tammy, is Audit Manager for LSP and Jason Starnes, with his promotion, will supervise her department.

Between them, the two earn more than $225,000 a year. Jason Starnes is paid $129,000 per year and Tammy receives $96,600.

While nepotism laws would seem to prohibit such an arrangement, and while it certainly appears to be unethical, there appears to be a loophole that has been cited in numerous opinions by the Ethics Board. That exception says if the employee, in this case, Tammy Starnes, has been in her position for a year or more, it is permissible for an immediate family member to supervise her.

When Tammy Starnes initially joined LSP after transferring from another state agency, her $92,900 salary at the time was $11,700 more than that of Jason Starnes and was in charge of monitoring LSP’s financial transactions, including those of her husband but now their lines of authority are reversed.

Jason Starnes, in addition to his $129,000 salary, also reportedly is receiving free housing, courtesy of LSP, according to one source.

Since separating from his wife, he is said to be living on the state dime in the LSP Training Academy VIP quarters.

Louisiana Title 42 covers the Code of Governmental Ethics. Part II, Section 1111 A(1) of Title 42 says in part, “…No public servant shall receive anything of economic value, other than compensation and benefits from the governmental entity to which he is duly entitled, for the performance of the duties and responsibilities of his office or position.”

Free living quarters would certainly fall under the description of economic value.

Depending on whether or not the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee has the cojones to give Edmonson’s record something other than a cursory look, the debate over his nomination could spark lively debate.

Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) is the only senator to vote against Riser’s amendment to Morrell’s SB 294 two years ago and she chairs the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Adding to the intrigue, if indeed there is to be any intrigue with Edmonson’s nomination is two other members of the committee are….Morrell and Riser. And Morrell would be justified if he was still smarting from Riser’s hijacking of his bill two years ago.

Given that Edmonson was originally appointed by Republican Bobby Jindal, it’s somewhat interesting that the committee is made up of four Democrats and three Republicans.

On the other hand, his nomination for reappointment now comes from a Democratic governor, which could put the four Democrats in an uncomfortable position of having to oppose a fellow Democrat’s nomination.

The bottom line, however, is that Edmonson is neither the fair-haired boy of the Republicans or the Democrats; he is the creation of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, one of the most powerful political influences in the state.

Make no mistake about that. It was the Sheriff’s Association that dictated that Jindal appoint Edmonson, who’s only qualification was his experience as an LSP public information officer. One former law enforcement official said unless an appointee has experience supervising personnel, there is no way he can be qualified to lead an entire department, especially one as large and far-ranging as LSP.

The association’s only criteria was the appointment of someone they could control.

And they got him.

But it would not be unprecedented for the committee to at least ask probing questions. Committee members threatened to withhold confirmation of Bruce Greenstein as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals in 2011 if he didn’t reveal the name of CNSI, a company he formerly worked for, as winner of a huge DHH contract. And after being grilled over his dealings with with the Regents in a fiber optics projects involving eight Louisiana research universities, Ed Antie of Carencro abruptly withdrew his name for consideration for a seat on the Board of Regents.

Here are the names and email addresses of the members of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee:

After Tuesday, we will know for certain if the committee members have the courage to make difficult but morally correct decisions or if they will collapse in the proverbial puddle at the feet of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association.

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice unearths 5-year-old Foster Campbell letter blasting Nungesser for his lack of action on coastal erosion

Posted in Coastal Erosion, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Politicians, Public Records, Senate, State Agencies, TV News on April 28, 2016| 10 Comments »

I have been accused of “intellectual laziness” by one of our readers.

That comment came after I posted my last story about Billy Nungesser’s negating 18 writs of mandamus filed over his failure to take certain actions and to produce public documents requested by the Plaquemines Parish Council in 2010 during the time he served as Parish President. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/04/26/insight-into-nungesser-disregard-for-laws-revealed-in-his-blatant-disregard-for-public-records-demands-other-actions/

“Must be a slow news week,” said the writer, who identified himself only as “Who Cares.” He went on to say, “Reporting on topics six years old is intellectual laziness.”

Well, Who Cares, or whatever your real name is (probably a political ally or even Nungesser himself), it really wasn’t intellectual laziness, but an effort to let readers know the type individual who now holds the second-highest elective office in state government.

The point of that story was to illustrate the past may well be prologue (to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare’s The Tempest…or was it that 1967 episode of Ironside?), i.e. if he was capable of such abuse of office then, who’s to say he won’t attempt the same type shenanigans as lieutenant governor?

Oops, sorry. We almost forgot: he already has. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/04/12/louisiana-has-a-new-clown-prince-but-its-egg-not-a-pie-all-over-lt-gov-nungessers-face-after-succession-of-blunders/

So, Who Cares, there was a relevance to the post and if you thought that was old news, read on.

Precisely five years ago today (April 28, 2011) Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell sent quite a testy letter to Nungesser who at the time was ramping up his first run for lieutenant governor barely six months after his October 2010 re-election as Parish President.

And lest anyone think our rehashing of Campbell’s five-year-old letter is an endorsement for his election to the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by David Vitter, it’s not. We have not and do not intend to make an endorsement in that race.

But Campbell took Nungesser to task for his political exploitation of the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and for his failure to take the lead in coastal restoration prior to that disaster.

Here is Campbell’s letter in its entirety:

            I received your letter on your thoughts of running for Lieutenant Governor. You wrote that you have been busy helping Plaquemines Parish and our state to recover from Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. You described “struggles with federal bureaucrats” and your amazement that a foreign company (British Petroleum) would be put in charge of cleaning up the spill.

            You’ve concluded that you can do the most good for Louisiana by leading the effort to rebuild our image as Lieutenant Governor. You asked for my opinion, so here it is:

            I wrote to you and all Louisiana elected officials after watching you and Gov. Jindal on national television following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil well. You and the governor were taking every media opportunity to express your anger at BP and the federal government.

            My question then, and now as well, was: Where have you been?

            You have been leader since 2007 of the parish that is Ground Zero for coastal erosion, and yet, I have heard not a word from you about the part played by other “foreign” and multinational oil companies in damaging Louisiana’s coast.

            Louisiana political leaders have known for years that oil and gas production has contributed heavily to the destruction of our marshes. It is also well-established that the force of Katrina which ravaged Plaquemines Parish and southeast Louisiana, was heightened by the loss of our barrier islands to erosion.

            The silence of you, Gov. Jindal and other elected officials from coastal Louisiana is deafening when it comes to asking major oil companies to pay for the damage they’ve caused. Your later father (William Nungesser), who (sic) I knew well, worked for the only statewide politician to make such a demand, Gov. Dave Treen. He was absolutely right.

            As destructive as it has been, the BP oil spill is minor compared to the devastation of coastal erosion which costs Louisiana a football field of land every hour. Maybe it is easier to go on CNN and rant about BP and a federal government perceived as unpopular in Louisiana than to stand up to powerful corporations doing harm to our coastline.

            I have written to you, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Vitter, Ms. (U.S. Sen. Mary) Landrieu, Mr. (U.S. Rep. Steve) Scalise, and others on this issue and I never get a reply. Maybe when you run for Lieutenant Governor, you can tell the rest of the story. I would welcome a frank discussion with you on Katrina, BP, coastal erosion and the oil industry. Let’s ask Tulane to host an event in New Orleans. Let’s determine who owes who (sic) for what. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Foster Campbell

Public Service Commissioner

 C: Louisiana Elected Officials

     Prof. Oliver Houck (Tulane University Law School)

No further comment seems necessary.

 

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 »

Why are public records laws enacted? Why don’t judges enforce laws? Perhaps Deshotels case will bring change

Posted in Corruption, Education, Ethics, Judges, Lawsuits, Media, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency on April 7, 2016| 9 Comments »

Third of four-part series:

Given the reluctance to impose meaningful fines in cases of blatant public records compliance violations, one has to wonder:

  • What is the purpose of going through the time consuming procedure of passing laws if they are not going to be enforced?
  • What is the purpose of a judge donning a robe and sitting on the bench if he/she has no intention of upholding so even the minimum penalty for violations of the law?
  • Is there some sort of unwritten agreement among certain judges and public officials that says judges must merely wink at violations and hand down only token penalties?

Louisiana laws, we can only assume, were enacted for a reason and that reason was to ensure strict compliance and to lay out proper punishment for violators. To that end, Louisiana Revised Statute (L.R.S.) 44:35 (E) (1) clearly says:

  • 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….

That’s certainly clear enough but L.R.S.) 44:35 (E) (2) then goes on to say:

  • The custodian 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.)

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

We have already seen in earlier posts this week how judges, through some form of convoluted rationale, are able to substantially reduce that $100 per day fine to insignificant amounts and in at least one case, to nothing at all.

First there was the case of the Baton Rouge Advocate and the LSU Daily Reveille. The two publications sued the LSU Board of Supervisors over its refusal to provide a list of candidates for LSU President. They won and the district court judge awarded more than $50,000 in penalties calculated on the $100-a-day formula for non-compliance only to see the monetary award overturned and negated in full by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

Then came our own lawsuit against the Division of Administration and Commissioner Kristy Nichols. DOA delayed responses to numerous requests by LouisianaVoice for several months only to be hit with a penalty of only $800 plus court costs and attorney fees.

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

And in the case of Barbara Ferguson and Charles J. Hatfield and their lawsuit against the Department of Education on behalf of their non-profit research organization, Research on Reforms, the court’s ruling was even more egregious. Three full years of non-compliance came to 684 days by the plaintiffs’ estimation (we calculated the number to be closer to 745 days) and they requested the full application of the penalty of $100 per day, or $68,400 plus attorney fees ($29,779) and court costs ($3,121).

FERGUSON REQUESTED JUDGMENT

Baton Rouge District Judge William Morvant first denied the plaintiffs’ claim outright but was overturned by the First Circuit which remanded the case back to Morvant for the imposition of penalties. Morvant not only cut the attorney fees in half to $15,000, but he completely disregarded the penalties for DOE’s—and Morvant’s apparently—disregard of the law.

FIRST CIRCUIT RULING ON FERGUSON

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

So now comes Mike Deshotels and his public records lawsuit against veteran defendant John White and his Department of Education.

This one is pretty easy except for one minor snag:

Deshotels filed his lawsuit on April 10, 2015, after two months of back and forth communications between him and DOE failed to produce the requested Multi Stat report for all public schools in Louisiana which contained the actual total number of students enrolled in each grade.

MICHAEL DEHOTELS PETITION

Even though Deshotels never requested any personal information, DOE ultimately refused his request “because of their obligations to protect the personal information of the students pursuant to FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act),” according to Deshotel’s petition.

The case finally made its way to trial in Baton Rouge on Oct. 19, 2015, before 19th Judicial District Judge Todd Hernandez.

Hernandez broke with the pack when he held John White personally liable. More than that, he assessed White with attorney fees and court costs of $11,988.84. And then, applying the letter of the public records law he ordered the payment of $100 per day “from Feb. 16, 2015, until the requested records were produced.

DESHOTEL JUDGMENT

Despite his order, those records were not produced until more than five months later, when they were submitted along with a March 31, 2016, settlement offer. That additional delay brought the total cost, including attorney fees and court costs, to about $49,000, according to Deshotels’s Baton Rouge attorney J. Arthur Smith.

And Judge Hernandez, as if sending his own message, held John White personally liable, an indication that Hernandez had reason to believe White had withheld the records on his own volition and without the advice of legal counsel.

(Parenthetically, if more judges followed the example set by Hernandez, public officials might be more cognizant of the importance of complying with the law.)

Still White persisted in his state of denial. That March 31 settlement letter from DOE legal counsel G.M. Millet, Jr., was little more than an insult to Smith and Deshotels.

“After careful consideration, the Department of Education has decided to provide an unsuppressed copy of the October 2014 Multi-Stats Report to Michael Deshotels and to pay him $9,292.74 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Judge Hernandez’s judgment,” the letter said.

SETTLEMENT OFFER

He then added the traditional legal verbiage that nevertheless appeared particularly absurd: “By complying with those portions of the judgment, in lieu of appeal, the Department is not admitting fault.” Not admitting fault? Really?

Millet also said that DOE planned to appeal the “portion of the judgement (sic) imposing fines against the Department for being arbitrary and capricious.”

Smith now says that the appeals have run, meaning the deadline has passed for White and DOE to appeal the judgment. Still, no payment has been made.

So Smith is now preparing to take matters to the next level.

He has prepared a Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination as the first step toward seizure of White’s assets, including his 2013 Infiniti and garnishment of his state wages.

In that motion, yet to be filed pending Hernandez’s ruling on a separate DOE motion, Smith asks “to examine John White, Defendant/Judgment Debtor and his income records, pay check stubs, W-2 forms, last year’s income tax returns, business papers, automobile titles and registration certificates (pink slips), records of accounts in banks and other financial institutions (checking and savings) on all matters pertaining to his income or property, in order that Plaintiff (Deshotels) may find means to execute the Judgment, and that the said Defendant (White) should be ordered to appear before this Honorable Court at such time as the Court assigns for said examination.”

MOTION FOR DEBTOR EXAMINATION

Now that should get someone’s attention, especially if Smith’s motion is granted.

If that’s what it takes to change the mindset of bureaucrats and elected officials, to hold them accountable to the laws of this state, to force them to cease furtive actions away from public observation, then so be it.

Tomorrow: Lafayette City Marshal Brian Pope has learned an expensive lesson for his refusal to make available 588 pages of emails Lafayette-based newspaper The Independent. Besides monetary penalties totaling almost $100,000, a state district judge tacked on seven days’ house arrest for contempt of court. That sentence has been postponed pending the outcome of Pope’s appeal of the conviction.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »