Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘State Police’ Category

Troop D Commander Capt. Chris Guillory a tad untruthful in interview with State Police in IA ‘investigation’ of complaint

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, State Police on February 6, 2016| 9 Comments »

Troop D Commander Captain Chris Guillory has been caught lying again.

Troopers say lying is the only guaranteed way to get fired but that apparently does not apply to Guillory. LouisianaVoice ran a story on Guillory citing an LSP investigation file showing he was abusing prescription medication. When he was questioned in that case, Guillory denied violating LSP drug use policy only to admit it later. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/09/05/state-police-launch-internal-affairs-investigation-of-troop-d-commander-after-public-records-requests-by-louisianavoice/

More recently, LouisianaVoice has received an investigation file on a complaint against Guillory for refusing to accept a complaint from a citizen (Dwight Gerst). Gerst made numerous allegations against Guillory and former Trooper Jimmy Rogers who has resigned amid the Troop D investigations.

Gerst sent a complaint to LSP internal affairs alleging Guillory refused to accept a complaint from him in violation of LSP policy. Gerst and Guillory had two different stories on how the meeting transpired. LouisianaVoice also received an audio recording of Gerst attempting to file a complaint with Guillory making it easy to determine who was telling the truth and who was lying. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/08/17/state-police-headquarters-sat-on-complaint-against-troop-d-trooper-for-harassment-captain-for-turning-a-blind-eye-to-it/

Here is part of Gerst’s complaint:

I attempted to file a complaint at Troop D. I met with Capt. Guillory at Troop D. Lieutenant Cyprien was also present. Before I got the chance to tell Guillory that I wanted to file a complaint, he informed me that if I was there to file a complaint, he would not accept a complaint from me. He said he thought I had problems and he was not doing anything until there was a disposition on my case from the sheriff’s office. He further said that he had a problem with me personally and professionally and he would not accept any complaint I may have. Guillory said there was nothing for us to talk about until the investigation was complete. I told him my complaint was not based on what I did or did not do. Guillory asked if I was there to complain about Rogers and I said I yes. I went there to file a complaint and was undeniably refused. I suspect this is a violation of state police policy.

The audio recording showed Gerst’s version of the meeting was truthful. Guillory’s version, as reflected in LSP documents, conflicted greatly with the recording.

The following passage was taken directly from the LSP documents (emphasis ours):

Capt. Guillory said that Gerst arrived at Troop D and was upset, stating that TFC Rogers was spreading lies about him. According to Capt. Guillory, Gerst was asking him about information pertaining to the criminal investigation which was being conducted by the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office. Capt. Guillory stated that he informed Gerst that he could not get involved in an ongoing investigation being conducted by another agency. He stated that Gerst continued to press him for information regarding the matter and he informed Gerst that he would have to go to the sheriff’s office himself if he wanted to find out about the investigation. According to Capt. Guillory, Gerst stated that the sheriff’s office would not talk to him or provide him any information. Guillory claimed that he told Gerst that “he wanted to wait until the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office was done with their criminal investigation before he could tell him any information”. He said that Gerst continued to question him and ask him what TFC Rogers had told the sheriff’s office. Guillory told Gerst again that he could not give him information regarding an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the sheriff’s office. Guillory said that the interaction with him and Gerst went back and forth for a few minutes. Guillory stated that “he never refused” to take Gerst’s complaint. He said that he told Gerst to “let him see what the sheriff’s office said about the criminal investigation”, because according to the information he obtained, there were serious allegations against Gerst. Guillory stated that Gerst then left the Troop without filing a complaint there and filed one through the Internal Affairs Section. Investigators questioned Guillory again September 17, 2015 about Gerst’s allegation that he refused to accept his (Gerst’s) complaint. Guillory’s statement was consistent with his original statement. Although Capt. Guillory advised that he never refused to take Mr. Gerst’s complaint, he (Guillory) was aware that Gerst was complaining of TFC Rogers’ conduct. Guillory said that he told Gerst to wait and let him see what the sheriff’s office said, because according to the information he (Guillory) obtained, there were serious allegations against Gerst.

Hers is what Guillory said during the three minute meeting with Gerst:

Have a seat. We’re not going to talk long, Okay. Your case is being investigated by the sheriff’s office. I’ve talked with them and if you are here to file a complaint or you have a complaint, I’m not accepting your complaint because I think you got problems and I’m not going to do anything until (inaudible) disposition on your case… I personally have a problem with you. Based on what I am being told by the investigator at the sheriff’s office on what you are being investigated for, I personally and professionally have a problem with you and I am not going to accept any form of complaint you may have until the disposition of their investigation is over. Any part of that unclear to you?

Apparently unbeknownst to Guillory, Gerst recorded their exchange (It is not illegal in Louisiana to record a conversation as long as one of the participants consents.) If you would like to listen to that exchange, click here: https://youtu.be/zd-JV3rKjko

Guillory appears to have been was untruthful in his responses to internal affairs investigators on two separate occasions in which he denied that he refused to take a Gerst’s complaint. He apparently assumed it would be his word against Gerst’s and he could deceive investigators.

According to the investigative report, Guillory sent the Troop Executive Officer Lieutenant Waylon Busby to the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s office to investigate Gerst’s stalking allegations against former Trooper Rogers. Instead, Busby started an unauthorized investigation into Gerst’s possessing a law enforcement license plate and seized his specialized plate. Guillory claimed to have no knowledge of that investigation. Busby was given a 32-hour suspension for his actions. The IA report indicated Busby performed an unauthorized investigation outside the normal scope of his duties and he facilitated the violation of Gerst’s constitutional rights from an illegal traffic stop.

State Police Sgt. Gary Smith said of taking the license plate that he “has never heard of that happening before and this was the first time he had ever seen it done.” Smith also denied Busby’s claims that he was told to pull him over for a traffic violation (window tint). DMV personnel also contradicted Busby’s statements about the investigation. Guillory denied any knowledge of the unauthorized action, unconstitutional traffic stop, and the revocation of the license plate.

All this revolves around Gerst’s picking up two children from school and giving them a ride. One of the children belonged to Former Trooper Rogers. Rogers became angry and tried very hard to get Gerst punished. The charges were thrown out of court at trial.

Rogers’ child was in the care of Gerst’s neighbor’s child. Gerst, with his own child in the car, gave the two children a ride 400 yards. LSP IA investigators vindicated Gerst in their report. IA interviewed the mother of the child who was given a ride by Gerst. Her statement indicated that Gerst did nothing wrong. Here is a passage about that incident taken directly from the report:

Investigators asked (redacted) if she had given Mr. Gerst permission to pick up her daughter while walking home from school. (Redacted) indicated that she did not tell Mr. Gerst on that particular day to give her daughter a ride home. However, she had previously given permission to Mr. Gerst in the past to do so, and she did not see anything wrong with him doing it on that day. Investigators asked if she felt any pressure from TFC Rogers to pursue charges against Mr. Gerst. (Redacted) indicated that she did not feel pressure or the need to file charges against Mr. Gerst. She stated that TFC Rogers told her that he felt as if there was “something there,” and for her to trust him. (Redacted) indicated that she felt as if she should trust TFC Rogers because she believed that he possibly had information about him (Gerst) that she did not have. (Redacted) related to investigators that she did not want to talk about the issue with Mr. Gerst and TFC Rogers anymore.

Gerst complained that Rogers and Guillory used their positions to push for charges against him. Guillory denied the allegations. Rogers admitted going to the district attorney’s office but denied he did it as a trooper but only as a father. He admitted he spoke to retired LSP Captain Russell Haman who works for the DA’s office. The statement provided by the child’s mother indicated that Rogers manipulated her into going along with his scheme in order to have Gerst prosecuted.

Gerst alleged in writing his attorney was told by the prosecution that the DA’s office was only pursuing charges because of pressure from LSP. IA asked prosecutor Dustan Abshire if he spoke to Gerst about the charges but failed to ask anything about state police influence in the report or what he told Gerst’s attorney.

All this just because Gerst had the temerity to file a complaint. This is one of the most frightening cases we have seen at LouisianaVoice. It is a naked display of abuse of power on the part of those in positions to harm innocent people.

This should serve as a message to anyone who considers filing a complaint against Captain Guillory or his clique: don’t!

 

Read Full Post »

North Louisiana judge removed from bench, re-elected, disgraces his office in sentencing drug dealing state cop

Posted in Courts, Judges, Politicians, Public Records, State Police on February 4, 2016| 17 Comments »

If there’s anything dirtier than a rogue cop, it would have to be a rogue judge.

Put the two together and an epic miscarriage of justice is bound to occur.

The two are equally bad for different reasons. The bad cop has a badge and a gun. The judge exists for the sole purpose of seeing that justice prevails for society—that victims are protected and the guilty are punished. When one or both betray that trust, society is the loser.

Recent events up in Monroe have proved that Ronald Thomas and Larry Jefferson belong together—in the same jail cell.

It was bad enough that Thomas, a Louisiana State Police veteran of 18 years routinely went off the grid to go fishing or meeting up with his paramour—all while on the clock. But over a period of two years, Thomas, the evidence custodian for Troop F in Monroe, returned up to $1 million in confiscated drugs to the street by stealing packets of cocaine that he was charged with incinerating. The scheme enriched him by hundreds of thousands of dollars in dirty money. http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/14639945-75/state-police-evidence-scandal-ends-in-modest-prison-term-for-rogue-trooper

Thomas was enabled in carrying out his business venture because the evidence custodian position had few, if any, checks and balances.

In September 2012, for example, he removed two sealed boxes containing nearly 24 pounds of cocaine from the evidence vault. The evidence was scheduled for destruction and Thomas was to have taken it to an incinerator in Alexandria the next day. Hidden cameras in his office even recorded him stuffing cash into a sock and then secreting the money in his waistband before leaving work.

Thomas was charged after a year-long investigation and faced up to 20 years in prison. His attorney, Darrell Hickman said of his client at trial, “This is a man who is probably not going to be in trouble for the rest of his life. He lost his job, he lost his reputation, and he almost lost his family. That’s enough to bring any man back to reality.”

Really, Darrell? That’s your best defense? A real pity all accused felons couldn’t fall back on the “I’ll probably never get in trouble again” defense.

At least Thomas was a little more creative. He blamed his crimes in part on exposure to fumes from confiscated narcotics he handled for years after being removed from patrol to the evidence room.

Yeah, right. And I blame my poor grades in school to the foul odor of cabbage wafting up into my classroom from the school cafeteria.

So, what was his punishment? Did he get the full 20 years?

Nope.

One year in the lockup, plus a $15,000 fine (remember, he raked hundreds of thousands of dollars by forsaking his sworn oath to uphold the law), and 240 community service.

And that’s where Judge Jefferson becomes the topic of our story and picture is ugly, to say the least. Yes, Thomas was a bad cop, but this story is about a disgraceful judge, a judge whose ego knows no bounds and his respect for the law appears miniscule.

First, a little background. A city court judge first, he was removed from the bench by the Louisiana Supreme Court on Jan. 18, 2000 after being formally charged by the Judiciary Commission with four separate counts:

Charge I:  Judge Jefferson abused his authority as a judge with respect to the City Prosecutor for the Monroe City Court and the Clerk of Court for the Monroe City Court by exceeding his contempt power and/or abusing such contempt power, which demonstrates a lack of proper judicial temperament and demeanor. These actions violated Canons 1, 2, 3(A)(1), (2), (3) and 3B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25C in that the actions were willful misconduct relating to the judge’s official capacity and were persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute.  

Charge II:  Judge Jefferson abused and exceeded his authority as a judge when he banned the City Prosecutor from his courtroom and subsequently dismissed 41 cases. His conduct violated Canons 1, 2, and 3A(1), (2), and (3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. Art. V, § 25C in that he engaged in willful misconduct relative to his office and engaged in public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute.

Charge III:  Judge Jefferson engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of La. R.S. 13:1952, Canons 1, 2, 3A(1) and La. Const. art. V, § 25C, in that he engaged in willful misconduct relating to his official duty and in public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Charge IV:  That Judge Jefferson failed to comply with the order of May 28, 1998, issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court, pursuant to which he was relieved of all administrative duties at Monroe City Court.   This was in violation of Canons 1, 2, 3(A)(1) and 3(B)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25C, in that he engaged in willful misconduct relating to this official duty and in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

There’s more.

In Charge I, the Commission charged Judge Jefferson with abusing his authority as a judge by exceeding his contempt power and abusing such contempt power with respect to the city prosecutor and the clerk of court for the Monroe City Court. The Commission found that such acts demonstrated Judge Jefferson’s lack of proper judicial temperament and demeanor under the circumstances. Charge I included three incidents involving Judge Jefferson, the prosecutor, James Rodney Pierre, and the Clerk of Court, Ms. Powell-Lexing, in which the judge held these individuals in contempt of court. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-supreme-court/1212290.html

“The majority recommends that Judge Jefferson be removed from judicial office,” the January 2000 decision said. “However, this court has previously stated that “[t]he most severe discipline should be reserved for judges who use their office improperly for personal gain; judges who are consistently abusive and insensitive to parties, witnesses, jurors, and attorneys; judges who because of laziness or indifference fail to perform their judicial duties to the best of their ability; and judges who engage in felonious criminal conduct.   Moreover, the removal of a duly elected member of the judiciary is a serious undertaking which should only be borne with the utmost care so as not to unduly disrupt the public’s choice for service in the judiciary.”

Judge Jefferson’s conduct warrants a two year suspension, retroactive to his interim suspension dated October 13, 1998. Effectively, the two-year suspension was in reality a 10-month suspension—to Oct. 13, 2000.

In September 2000, Judge Jefferson was sued by newsman Ken Booth in an effort to prevent his return to the bench. The lawsuit was thrown out because Booth could not prove he was a qualified elector in Ouachita Parish and thus, had no legal standing with the court.

But the court took matters a step further by point out the Supreme Court has no authority set qualifications for seeking office. “Once an individual has been removed from judicial office, he no longer is a judge, and is no longer subject to judicial disciplinary actions,” the ruling by the State High Court said. Because Jefferson’s license to practice law was not revoked, he was therefore eligible to seek another judgeship. http://www.leagle.com/decision/20002014765So2d1249_11742/BOOTH%20v.%20JEFFERSON

http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2484:attorney-larry-d-jefferson-of-monroe-la-il-duce-wannabee-moron-&catid=150:louisiana-attorney-misfits&Itemid=100

Accordingly, in November 2007 he again won election to the Monroe City Court judgeship with 62 percent of the vote.

Then, in November 2014, he ran for judge of the 4th Judicial District Court (Ouachita and Morehouse parishes), capturing 61 percent of the vote.

And so it was in 2016 that a dirty cop came forward to receive justice from a tainted judge who handed down a disgraceful sentence.

Thousands of non-violent offenders occupy cells in state and parish prisons throughout Louisiana for minor transgressions—and they’re serving sentences considerably longer than the cop who ripped off $1 million in cocaine from the State Police evidence room.

And there are judges who will turn a blind eye to such crimes but will berate a city court prosecutor or a city clerk of court for the most minor of offenses.

There is a certain irony that the last names of Thomas and Jefferson would come together to spit in the face of honest cops and judicial integrity.

Read Full Post »

LSTA legal counsel outmaneuvered by retired state trooper who trumped his case in support of political contributions

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Lobbyist, Politicians, Public Records, State Police, Transparency on January 17, 2016| 33 Comments »

When Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) legal counsel Floyd Falcon defended political contributions in the 2015 gubernatorial campaign by LSTA, he cited a 1992 legal precedent which he said permitted the activity.

Apparently he had not counted on being outmaneuvered by a retired state trooper who was perfectly able to do his own legal research to counter Falcon’s argument at last week’s hearing before the State Police Commission.

Several retired state troopers, represented by spokesman Scott Perry, a retired captain with 26 years’ experience with LSP, appeared before the commission on Thursday (Jan. 14) to voice objections to the funneling of LSTA funds through its executive director David Young.

Perry was joined by retired Lt. Leon Millet who said more than $45,000 in political contributions were made without the knowledge or consent of the LSTA membership and that the action appeared to be a violation of the state constitution and State Police Commission regulations.

Perry, on Friday, followed his Thursday verbal request for an investigation with a written request. “Please accept this correspondence as a formal request pursuant to State Police Commission Rule ‘Chapter 16, Investigations,’” he wrote. Perry asked that the commission “investigate the allegation of Prohibited Political Active, 14.2 (A) (1), 14.2 (A) (4), 14.2 (A) (8), in regards to political endorsements and contributions.

“This request is made specifically against classified members of the Office of State Police acting in their capacity as elected officers of the Louisiana State Troopers Association.”

Following Perry’s address to the commission on Thursday, Falcon told the commission it had no authority to investigate LSTA because it is a private organization not subject to oversight by the commission.

Commission members agreed but pointed out that it is empowered to investigate illegal or questionable activity by individual state troopers. The commission is the equivalent of the Louisiana Civil Service Commission which serves the dual purpose of protecting the rights of state employees and investigating illegal or improper activities by state employees.

Falcon cited the 1992 case of Cannatella vs. the New Orleans Department of Civil Service. In that case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned a 30-day suspension handed down to police Sgt. Ronald Cannatella for violation of a city civil service rule prohibiting political activity. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=718580336782666189&q=cannatella+v.+department+of+civil+service&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006&as_vis=1

Cannatella was president of the Police Association of New Orleans (PANO) in January 1990 when PANO decided to endorse a candidate for mayor. PANO had polled its membership beforehand and Cannatella subsequently appeared at a public forum to announce the endorsement. The appellate court noted that Cannatella believed he was acting “pursuant to what he believed was a function of his position as the president of PANO.”

The court said that while the prohibition against political activity is “exclusively limited to commissioners and classified civil service employees and officers,” the prohibition “does not extend to a labor organization such as PANO, or its spokesperson, merely because its members are classified civil service employees.”

No sooner was Falcon finished citing the Cannatella case than Perry, who now works as an investigator for the Office of Inspector General, was on his feet. Perry presented a copy of a 2001 ruling by a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. The ruling he held, while not a legal precedent, nevertheless differed significantly with the Cannatella case and was identical to the circumstances of the LSTA action.

In the case of Kenner Police Department vs. Kenner Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board, five officers who signed off on a contribution check in their capacity as members of the executive board of the city police association were fired.

In the opinion written by Judge Clarence McManus, the Fifth Circuit said that while Cannatella held that members of PANO had the right to endorse a candidate without exposing the members to penalties under the civil service laws, “…Cannatella is not controlling or binding on this court, as counsel for appellants seems to suggest.”

It said Cannatella is distinguishable because it involved a different statute governed by a different provision of the constitution. “In this case the appellants are indeed classified civil service employees. Therefore, the prohibition against political activity clearly applies to them,” the decision said. But, the court noted, the officers claimed they did not individually make any campaign contributions, but rather PACK did. (PACK is an acronym for Police Association for the City of Kenner.)

The court said the appellants’ assertion that the contribution and endorsement were actions taken by PACK and not the fire appellants individually “is simply untenable. As for the contention that being members of a labor union exempts them from any and all responsibility under the civil service laws, we find this argument unpersuasive. To allow the appellants to do indirectly through the union or an association that which they cannot do directly as classified civil service employees will permit them to circumvent the statute’s prohibition.” (Emphasis ours)

The civil service board held that the campaign contribution check “was personal action taken by the officers individually, and not an action of the association,” said the appellate court in upholding their termination.  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1285153.html

LouisianaVoice broke the story of the LSTA contributions on December 9. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/09/more-than-45000-in-campaign-cash-is-funneled-through-executive-director-by-louisiana-state-troopers-association/

In the LSTA case, Young acknowledged that he made the contributions in his name and was subsequently reimbursed by the organization.

In a statement that would seem to conflict with LSTA’s own legal counsel’s argument, Young said there were questions about the ability of state employees making political contributions. “So in order to avoid any of that,” he told the Advocate, “if I make a contribution as a non-state employee, there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution.”

Except there now are questions. Commission Vice Chairman W. Lloyd Grafton of Ruston observed that it “almost makes me think there was something suspect here because of the check writing. Why wouldn’t the association have made the contribution? It looks like someone was trying to circumvent something.”

Prior to that date, on Dec. 4, LouisianaVoice broke another story that State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson attempted to prevail upon the LSTA board to write a letter to then Gov.-elect John Bel Edwards endorsing Edmonson for reappointment to lead state police for another four years.

On Nov. 30, the board voted unanimously not to write the letter. Edwards subsequently reappointed Edmonson anyway, largely on the strength of the endorsement of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association and the Louisiana Police Chiefs’ Association.

Edmonson twice denied that he had requested the LSTA board’s endorsement but LSTA Interim President Stephen LaFargue confirmed to LouisianaVoice, also on two separate occasions, that Edmonson asked him about the prospects of LSTA sending a letter to Edwards asking that Edmonson be reappointed.

“Col. Edmonson attended the board meeting and he told me he was going to apply for reappointment,” LaFargue said. “He then asked about the possibility of the LSTA board writing a letter of endorsement. I told him I didn’t know, that it would have to be taken up by the board.” Because of questions raised by LouisianaVoice, the board subsequently agreed unanimously not to write the letter to Edwards.

A meeting summary of a Troop I (Lafayette) affiliate meeting noted that LaFargue also “took responsibility” for the LSTA’s endorsement of Edwards in the Nov. 21 runoff election against U.S. Sen. David Vitter. Edwards defeated Vitter by a 60-40 percentage point margin.

Edwards also was one of several candidates who received contributions from LTSA. Edwards spokesman Richard Carbo told the Baton Rouge Advocate last Thursday that the governor had no knowledge that Young was reimbursed by LSTA and that Edwards would return the $8,000 received from LSTA through Young “if the contributions were made improperly.” http://theadvocate.com/news/14574305-124/head-of-state-police-group-says-nothing-wrong-with-his-political-donations-gov-edwards-said-he-will

Louisiana State Police Commission Chapter 14 to which Perry referred specifically says that no member of State Police shall:

  • Participate or engage in political activity, including, but not limited to, any effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or support or oppose a particular political party in an election;
  • Make or solicit contributions for any political purpose, party, faction, or candidate;
  • Directly or indirectly, pay or promise to pay any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party, faction or candidate, nor solicit or take part in soliciting any such assessment, subscription or contribution, and no person shall solicit any such assessment, subscription or contribution of any classified employee in the State Police Service.

http://laspc.dps.louisiana.gov/laspc.nsf/c4b8169248104d4286256ead0069b9bd/582526be4d41dca786256ea000667ce2?OpenDocument

So in the end, we have:

  • State police officers who comprise the LSTA board making a political endorsement in direct contravention of rules and regulations.
  • The Superintendent of State Police leaning on the LSTA board in an effort to get the board to send the new governor a letter endorsing him for reappointment.
  • The executive board of the LSTA, comprised of state police officers under the jurisdiction of the State Police Commission making the decision to make more than $45,000 in political contributions—contributions that were laundered through its non-state employee executive director—by the director’s own admission, and without bothering to poll its membership for approval.

All three of which were in violation of State Police Commission regulations.

Any questions?

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice exclusive: At long last, it can be disclosed that the reason for all the problems at State Police is….us

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Public Records, State Police, Transparency on January 15, 2016| 17 Comments »

The legal counsel for the Louisiana State Troopers Association was true to the time-honored tradition of blaming the messenger for bad news during Thursday’s meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission.

According to lawyer Floyd Falcon, yours truly is the bad guy in all the flap about the LSTA’s contributions to political campaigns during the recent election cycle.

Never mind that active troopers as well as retirees who are members of LSTA have openly voiced their objections to the decision of the LSTA board to launder more than $45,000 in contributions through executive director David Young.

As publisher of LouisianaVoice, I apparently am the problem. I am a “common complainant,” according to Falcon, who said he would refused to respond to any questions put to him by me.

I guess we’re just supposed to sit still and shut up and not ask questions about how our public officials comport themselves. Perhaps Mr. Falcon spent so much time watching the legislature do just that during the eight years of the Bobby Jindal administration that he truly believes that’s how it should be.

Well, Mr. Falcon, my grandfather always taught me to question motives and to never accept things at face value. “Never listen to what a politician says,” he told me over and over. “Listen to what they don’t say.”

And at Thursday’s commission meeting, there was plenty that wasn’t said.

Never mind that the contributions were fronted by Young who was then repaid from a slush fund handed by LSTA: I am the one who writes “convoluted stories,” according to Falcon.

Never mind that Falcon, when asked point-blank, said he did not know why the checks to various political candidates, including Gov. John Bel Edwards, were made in Young’s name.

Never mind that Young said he made the contributions as a non-state employee so “there could never be a question later that a state employee made a contribution,” which is against state civil service rules.

But the fact is, the state employees, in this case, state troopers, did make the contributions since the LSTA is supported in large part by membership dues from troopers and retired troopers.

When retired state trooper Scott Perry of Opelousas, complained that he was refused copies of checks and receipts after making a public records request, Falcon said those records were available for the asking.

When I asked him to confirm that, and he responded in the affirmative, I then asked why the checks and receipts for reimbursement to Young were not made available, Falcon bristled. “Mr. Aswell is not a member of LSTA. He is a common complainant and I decline to answer his questions,” he said.

If exposing questionable activities of governmental agencies and officials defines me as a “complainant,” it is a mantle I wear with considerable pride, Mr. Falcon’s intended insult notwithstanding. No less a statesman than Thomas Jefferson said, if given a choice of government without a free press or a free press without government, “I would not hesitate to choose the latter.”

Mr. Falcon may not like it, but I am every bit as qualified as a member of the Fourth Estate as any reporter for any medium. I hold a degree in journalism and I spent more than 25 years as a reporter and editor of several Louisiana newspapers and even owned and ran my own news service in the State Capital for a number of years, providing coverage of state government for about 30 newspapers across the state. Along the way I’ve managed to pick up a few awards for feature writing, breaking news coverage, and investigative reporting.

I will put my credentials as a reporter alongside Mr. Falcon’s credentials as an attorney any day of the week. And I damn sure don’t mind being labeled a “complainant.”

At least I didn’t go before the commission to argue that there was nothing for it to investigate as did Mr. Falcon. LSTA, he huffed, is a private entity and not subject to public records requests and not subject to any investigation by the State Police Commission. Well, that certainly makes everything hunky dory. LSTA, he said, is no different than a teachers union or other union of public employees. Well there is one slight difference, Mr. Falcon. The teachers unions and other public employee unions, when political contributions are made, they are done in the name of the union and not through some straw donor. And the union membership generally knows about the endorsements and contributions—or at least knows there will be endorsements and contributions to someone.

One retired member of LSTA, when informed of the contributions said, “Holy s—t! We had no idea this was going on.” Another said LSTA’s membership had never been told of the contributions. “They knew nothing about it,” he said. “We’re not supposed to get involved in politics.” https://louisianavoice.com/2015/12/09/more-than-45000-in-campaign-cash-is-funneled-through-executive-director-by-louisiana-state-troopers-association/

Tanny Devillier, a retired state police deputy commander, said he was “one of two members still alive” who founded LSTA in 1969. “LSTA was not created for political contributions,” he said. “It was created to provide support for troopers who suffered misfortune.”

“It almost makes me think there was something suspect here because of the check writing,” said commission Vice Chairman Lloyd Grafton. “Why wouldn’t the association have made the contribution? It looks like someone was trying to circumvent something.”

Perry, who now works as an investigator for the Office of Inspector General, cited Louisiana revised statute 18:1505.2 which says, “No person shall give, furnish, or contribute monies, materials, supplies, or make loans to or in support of a candidate or to any political committee, through or in the name of another, directly or indirectly. This prohibition shall not apply to dues or membership fees of any membership organization or corporation made by its members or stockholders, if such membership organization or corporation is not organized primarily for the purpose of supporting, opposing, or otherwise influencing the nomination for election, or election of any person to public office.”

He said if LSTA establishes a precedent of making campaign contributions, it will encourage candidates for every office “to come to LSTA with their hands out and that’s not what LSTA is for.”

Leon Millet, a retired lieutenant who served more than 20 years with LSP, reiterated the payments were made without the knowledge or consent of the membership. At the same time, he said members who are still active troopers refuse to come forward out of fear of reprisals.

State Police Commission Chairman Franklin M. Kyle III said the commission lacks jurisdiction over private groups such as LSTA but that the commission and LSTA have a “common denominator,” which he described as the shared membership of state troopers. He requested that LSTA provide more documentation on its finances and issued an invitation to the unhappy retired troopers present to reappear at a future meeting.

A spokesman for Gov. Edwards, Richard Carbo, told the Baton Rouge Advocate that if it is determined that the contributions were made improperly, the LSTA contribution to the Edwards campaign ($8,000) would be returned. http://theadvocate.com/news/14574305-124/head-of-state-police-group-says-nothing-wrong-with-his-political-donations-gov-edwards-said-he-will.

Meanwhile, Mr. Falcon, I will happily continue being the “common complainant” whenever I see things that don’t appear in the best interest of the citizens of Louisiana.

Read Full Post »

Rank and file theft gets headlines; media conveniently look other way at misappropriations by high ranking officials

Posted in Audit Reports, Civil Service, Corruption, DOA, Fraud, Governor's Office, State Police on December 30, 2015| 9 Comments »

“The petty thief is imprisoned but the big thief becomes a feudal lord.”

Zhuangzi

 

There it was, splashed across the Metro page of Tuesday’s Baton Rouge Advocate:

“OMV audit: More than $200,000 stolen”

The entire matter is heavily weighed down by irony but you’d never know it from reading the story.

It seems that a new audit of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS) has revealed that two employees of the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV) misappropriated more than $211,000 before being arrested.

The two, Heather Prather of Baker in East Baton Rouge Parish and Angelle Temple of Marksville in Avoyelles Parish were actually arrested in early 2015—nearly a year ago—and fired for felony theft, injuring public records and malfeasance in office.

 

“Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and then they make you king.”

Bob Dylan

 

“Upon investigation, OMV management determined that the OMV employees had diverted public funds for personal use and violated state laws,” according to the Legislative Auditor’s Office.

Apparently the two issued receipts to paying customers but then either altered, voided or simply did not post the transactions. There was no indication as to whether or not the two knew each other or if they conspired together or acted separately in misappropriating the funds.

And yes, $211,000 is a lot of money and nothing in this post should be interpreted as excusing the women’s actions.

But isn’t it odd that the media would give such prominence to this story while overlooking official misappropriation of public funds?

Take, for example, the lingering case of high ranking State Police official Jill Boudreaux and the unmet demand that she repay nearly $60,000 in money she received to which she was not entitled. That little matter is still unresolved after almost six years.

And then there is Bobby Jindal. He allowed the taxpayers of Louisiana to pick up the tab for the cost of more than $3 million for State Police security details. Those costs were incurred while he spent more than two-thirds of his final year in office campaigning out-of-state for the Republican presidential nomination. A reasonable person would assume his campaign would have paid for that protection since his travels had zero to do with his job as governor of Louisiana.

But few lately have accused Jindal of being reasonable. The cost of flights, taxis, auto rentals, lodging, laundry and meals cost Louisiana taxpayers more than $640,000 in addition to the salaries of state troopers assigned to his out-of-state security detail. None of that has been refunded by Jindal’s campaign.

 

“He who uses the office he owes to the voters wrongfully

and against them is a thief”

Jose Marti

Boudreaux, Undersecretary for DPS, which has management oversight responsibility for OMV, first said the office would consider a policy of no longer accepting cash as a safeguard against theft by employees.

Later, however, she and the Auditor’s Office agreed that OMV only needs a better system of controls over accepting cash. State Police public information officer Doug Cain said the goal of OMV was to continue to provide convenience to the customer while at the same time, assuring “due diligence to have accountability on the process.”

Due diligence appears to have been lacking in efforts to have Boudreaux repay the $59,000 she was paid as part of an early retirement incentive offered nearly six years ago.

In April of 2010, the Jindal administration, in an offer to implement across the board savings, made a one-time incentive package offer to various state agencies as a means to encourage state employees to take early retirement.

Handled properly, it appeared at the time—and still does appear—to have been an economical and compassionate way to nudge employees who wanted out but who could not afford to retire, into making the decision to walk away, thus reducing the number of state employees which in turn translated to long-term savings in salaries and benefits paid by the state.

On April 23 of that year, DPS Deputy Undersecretary Jill Boudreaux sent an email to all personnel informing them that the Department of Civil Service and the Louisiana State Police Commission had approved the retirement incentive as a “Layoff Avoidance Plan.”

In legal-speak, under the incentive eligible applicants would receive a payment of 50 percent of the savings realized by DPS for one year from the effective date of the employee’s retirement.

In simpler language, the incentive was simply 50 percent of the employee’s annual salary. If an employee making $50,000 per year, for example, was approved for the incentive, he or she would walk away with $25,000 in up-front payments, plus his or her regular retirement and the agency would save one-half of her salary from the date of retirement to the end of the fiscal year. The higher the salary, the higher the potential savings.

The program, offered to the first 20 DPS employees to sign up via an internet link on a specific date, was designed to save the state many times that amount over the long haul. If, for example, 20 employees, each making $50,000 a year, took advantage of the incentive, DPS theoretically would realize a savings of $1 million per year thereafter following the initial retirement year.

That formula, repeated in multiple agencies, could produce a savings of several million—not that much in terms of a $25 billion state budget, but a savings nonetheless.

The policy did come with one major caveat from the Department of Civil Service, however. Agencies were cautioned not to circumvent the program through the state’s obscure retire-rehire policy whereby several administrative personnel, the most notable being former Secretary of Higher Education Sally Clausen, have “retired,” only to be “rehired” a day or so later in order to reap a monetary windfall.

“We strongly recommend that agencies exercise caution in re-hiring an employee who has received a retirement incentive payment within the same budget unit until it can be clearly demonstrated that the projected savings have been realized,” the Civil Service communique said.

 

“A man with a briefcase can steal millions more than any man with a gun.”

Don Henley

 

Basically, to realize a savings under the early retirement incentive payout, an agency would have been required to wait at least a year before rehiring an employee who had retired under the program.

Boudreaux, by what many in DPS feel was more than mere happenstance, managed to be the first person to sign up on the date the internet link opened up for applications.

In Boudreaux’s case, her incentive payment was based on an annual salary of about $92,000 so her incentive payment was around $46,000. In addition, she was also entitled to payment of up to 300 hours of unused annual leave which came to another $13,000 or so for a total of about $59,000 in walk-around money.

Her retirement date was April 28 but the day before, on April 27, she double encumbered herself into the classified (Civil Service) Deputy Undersecretary position because another employee was promoted into her old position on April 26.

A double incumbency is when an employee is appointed to a position that is already occupied by an incumbent, in this case, Boudreaux’s successor. Double incumbencies are mostly used for smooth succession planning initiatives when the incumbent of a position (Boudreaux, in this case) is planning to retire, according to the Louisiana Department of Civil Service.

http://www.civilservice.louisiana.gov/files/HRHandbook/JobAid/5-Double%20Incumbency.pdf

Here’s the kicker: agencies are not required to report double incumbencies to the Civil Service Department if the separation or retirement will last for fewer than 30 days. And because State Civil Service is not required to fund double incumbencies, everything is conveniently kept in-house and away from public scrutiny.

On April 30, under the little-known retire-rehire policy, Boudreaux was rehired two days after her “retirement,” but this time at the higher paying position of Undersecretary, an unclassified, or appointive position.

What’s more, though she “retired” as Deputy Undersecretary on April 28, her “retirement” was inexplicably calculated based on the higher Undersecretary position’s salary, a position she did not assume until April 30—two days after her “retirement,” sources inside DPS told LouisianaVoice.

Following her maneuver, then-Commissioner of Administration Angelé Davis apparently saw through the ruse and reportedly ordered Boudreaux to repay her incentive payment as well as the payment for her 300 hours of annual leave, according to those same DPS sources.

It was about this time, however, that Davis left Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration to take a position in the private sector. Paul Rainwater was named to succeed Davis on June 24, 2010, and the matter of Boudreaux’s payment quickly slipped through the cracks and was never repaid.

Granted, $59,000 is not a lot in the over scheme of things—especially with the state facing a budgetary shortfall of nearly $2 billion. But as the late Sen. Everette Dirksen said, “A million here and a million there and pretty soon you’re taking about real money.”

Well, no matter the amount, it’s real money.

Perhaps when Jay Dardenne takes over as the incoming Commissioner of Administration, he may wish to take another look at the manner in which Boudreaux took $59,000 in extra cash and then defied the directive by Davis to repay the money.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »