Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

Bulldog tenacity of West Monroe newspaper raises questions of Attorney General’s conflict of interests in 4th JDC probe

Posted in Attorney General, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Judges, Lawsuits, Media, Public Records, Transparency on May 27, 2016| 6 Comments »

Editor’s note: Just when you think good, old-fashioned investigative reporting has gone the way of LINOTYPE MACHINES and hot lead typesetting, the Baton Rouge Advocate conducts a thorough probe of operations at the Louisiana State Penitentiary that has resulted in a wave of resignations if no indictments.

And then there is a twice-weekly publication up in West Monroe called The Ouachita Citizen headed by Publisher Sam Hanna, Jr. His paper’s ongoing investigation into the Fourth Judicial District Court is making a lot of people very uncomfortable and with good reason. So uncomfortable, in fact, that several judges in the 4th JDC actually filed a lawsuit against Hanna and The Citizen to prevent the publication from seeking public records to which they were legally entitled. Such action by the judges is unprecedented and appears frighteningly Nixonesque in its brazen attempt to thwart legitimate efforts to inform the citizens of Ouachita Parish. It’s the kind of action that should send chills down the spine of the electorate. Hanna has vowed to refuse to pay court costs assessed in that litigation. He has lost advertising revenue as a result of his coverage of the court.

Following is a lengthy story by Citizen reporters Zach Parker and Johnny Gunter published yesterday (Thursday, May 26) by the paper. One major point raised is the apparent conflict of interest in the Attorney General’s office conducting an investigation of the 4th JDC while at the same time defending four of the judges in a lawsuit brought against them by a fifth judge.

By Zach Parker and Johnny Gunter

The Citizen

Inquiries by The Ouachita Citizen into Fourth Judicial District Attorney Jerry Jones’ involvement in an investigation of Fourth Judicial District Court show the district attorney offered a false account of his communications with investigators, filed misleading court documents and did not refer this newspaper’s criminal complaint to authorities involved in the investigation.

Those activities formed part of Jones’ efforts to downplay the investigation into possible wrongdoing at the court as well as his involvement in the probe.

The investigation concerned allegations that law clerk Allyson Campbell committed payroll fraud and destroyed or concealed court records. Those accusations also are the focus of separate lawsuits, one filed in district court by Monroe businessman Stanley R. Palowsky III and the other in federal court by Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Sharon Marchman.

Jerry Jones restricts probe’s scope

In July 2015, Jerry Jones called on the Office of State Inspector General and Louisiana State Police to investigate public corruption. At that time, he was tight-lipped about the scope of the investigation, at first refusing to comment though he later clarified the investigation concerned Fourth Judicial District Court.

As revealed in comments to The Ouachita Citizen as well as to other media outlets, Jerry Jones restricted the scope of the investigation to an audit of the court’s finances released March 2, 2015 by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office. That audit said some court employees may have earned pay for hours not worked. As first reported by The Ouachita Citizen and later confirmed in open court, Campbell was the subject of auditors’ comments.

However, there were other allegations concerning Campbell that Jerry Jones sidestepped during interviews, repeatedly claiming the probe concerned the audit only. During interviews, he downplayed any outcome of an investigation into payroll fraud since Campbell was a salaried employee, not hourly, in spite of the allegations concerning falsified time sheets approved by court judges.

In March 2015, Ouachita Citizen reporter Johnny Gunter submitted a criminal complaint to Jones’ office, asking the district attorney to investigate not only allegations that Campbell had committed payroll fraud but also accusations by Palowsky and Monroe attorney Cody Rials that Campbell had destroyed or concealed documents they had filed with the court in their separate legal matters.

Little more than a week before the Inspector General and State Police launched their joint investigation, The Ouachita Citizen learned Jones had not begun an investigation, requested any documents or information from court officials in response to the newspaper’s criminal complaint.

Through The Ouachita Citizen‘s inquiries and reports, more details emerged concerning the scope of the court investigation. In a June 30, 2015 interview, retired Judge Ben Jones, who is the court’s administrator, informed The Ouachita Citizen that he had discussed the newspaper’s criminal complaint with Jerry Jones.

“He (Jerry Jones) indicated to us (the court) that he would respond to your criminal complaint and take appropriate action at such time that he thought appropriate,” Ben Jones said. “We are prepared, should he act on that criminal complaint, we are prepared to cooperate, and that’s what we’ll do. But at this point, he has not asked us for any information, any documents, or initiated any investigation.”

During that interview, Ben Jones repeatedly said Jerry Jones would conduct an investigation into the matters raised by The Ouachita Citizen‘s criminal complaint “with integrity” and would show court officials no special privileges.

Ben Jones was one of five district court judges named defendants along with Campbell in Palowsky’s lawsuit. In his lawsuit, Palowsky accused Ben Jones and judges Carl Sharp, Wilson Rambo, Fred Amman and Stephens Winters of covering up Campbell’s activities, a claim reiterated in Marchman’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

In the district attorney’s interviews with the press, Jerry Jones said the investigation into the court did not involve any judges.

Jerry Jones gives false account of communications with investigators

The Ouachita Citizen learned Jerry Jones concealed his communications with investigators as well as offered the newspaper conflicting accounts of a report on the investigation’s findings.

When asked in an April 25 interview whether he had engaged in any communications with the Inspector General or the State Police concerning the investigation, he said, “No. None at all.”

The District Attorney further distanced himself from the investigation at that time and said, “I haven’t had any communication with them other than having my assistant ask (Inspector General) Stephen Street about the status of the report,” referring to whether a report had been prepared on any findings in the court investigation.

He made that statement to the newspaper in spite of the fact that his office had received a letter from Street 10 days before, a letter which represented a report on the investigation’s findings. Street’s April 15 letter claimed there was no “sufficient cause” to file criminal charges against Campbell on the accusations of payroll fraud or document destruction was first reported by The Ouachita Citizen. According to that letter, Street was concluding his office’s investigation into the matter.

“Because the available facts do not provide sufficient cause for the arrest of Ms. Campbell for any criminal offense, we are closing our file and taking no further action on this matter,” Street wrote. “Ms. Campbell was interviewed and denied destroying or hiding any court records or pleadings. She stated that her work schedule was approved by her supervisor and that she worked the hours for which she was paid. Judge Carl Sharp supported her claim that all court documents were always available to him. He also confirmed that Ms. Campbell was a salaried employee whose hours were sometimes irregular.”

In a May 11 interview, The Ouachita Citizen asked Jerry Jones why he had misinformed the newspaper by saying he’d had no communications with investigators though he’d received the April 15 letter from Street. In response to that query, he again denied he had engaged in any communications with investigators.

The Ouachita Citizen then asked Jerry Jones about his written correspondence with Street: He declined to comment, saying he couldn’t answer that question and had referred his office’s investigation to the Attorney General’s office.

The Ouachita Citizen then informed him that the newspaper had obtained a copy of the April 15 letter revealing correspondence between Street and Jerry Jones on the investigation, at which point the district attorney paused and then said, “Okay, I made a mistake. You’re not getting another word out of me.”

Throughout the investigation Jerry Jones sought to distance himself from the court probe though the Inspector General’s letter as well as The Ouachita Citizen‘s inquiries to State Police all referred to the district attorney’s involvement. According to the newspaper’s inquiries, he was calling the shots in the investigation though he said he wasn’t investigating and didn’t have the manpower in his office to conduct such an investigation.

“We keep it separate,” he said in the April 25 interview. “I’m not investigating.”

Following The Ouachita Citizen‘s May 11 interview, Jerry Jones informed the newspaper that State Police had completed a written report that contradicted the findings revealed in Street’s April 15 letter. He said he would ensure the newspaper was provided with a copy of the State Police report he claimed existed.

The Ouachita Citizen submitted an inquiry and a public records request to State Police about the purported report, asking to obtain a copy. However, State Police authorities informed the newspaper that Jerry Jones had told them the investigation should be considered open, a status that would bar the release of documents pertaining to the investigation, including the unseen State Police report.

According to a May 11 statement from State Police spokesman Maj. Doug Cain, State Police investigators were awaiting clearance from Jones to release the investigative report.

Later that day, State Police informed The Ouachita Citizen that record would not be released, per instructions from Jerry Jones.

“The district attorney for the 4th JDC is awaiting additional information and the matter is considered still open at this time,” wrote Michele M. Giroir, State Police attorney supervisor in a May 11 email. “Therefore, pursuant to R.S. 44:3(A)(1), the records are exempt from disclosure at this time.”

Records dispute DA’s claim he transferred case to AG

Since early last year, Jerry Jones has repeatedly told The Ouachita Citizen he was not investigating but had referred that responsibility to the Attorney General’s office.

“You people keep saying I’m investigating, but I’m not,” he said. “I sent that to the AG’s office.”

At that time, Buddy Caldwell was Attorney General and had appointed a taxpayer-paid defense for Campbell in spite of questions raised by The Ouachita Citizen about the legality of that appointment. Caldwell’s involvement in the defense of Campbell later was cited as grounds for naming him a defendant in Marchman’s lawsuit.

In support of his claim he had transferred the responsibility of investigating to the Attorney General, Jerry Jones produced last year a motion to recuse he had filed at the Ouachita Parish Clerk of Court’s office in the court record for Stanley R. Palowsky III v. W. Brandon Cork and others, the lawsuit in which the allegations against Campbell first surfaced.

His Dec. 5, 2014, Motion to Recuse said, “Now into this Honorable Court comes Jerry L. Jones, Fourth Judicial District Attorney, who, with respect, represents: The District Attorney recuses himself and his office in the above captioned case and moves that same be sent to the Attorney General’s Office.”

However, Jerry Jones’ motion to recuse has laid untouched in the court record and was never sent to the Attorney General’s office, according to Ouachita Parish Clerk of Court Louise Bond.

Earlier this week, The Ouachita Citizen asked to review the court record for Palowsky v. Cork, which is secured in Bond’s office since, she said, it’s a “high profile case” and she did not want any parties claiming their documents had gone missing from it, referring to accusations from Palowsky that Campbell had either destroyed or concealed documents he filed in that same case.

After a review of the record by Bond and The Ouachita Citizen, there was no indication that Jerry Jones’ motion to recuse had ever been sent to the Attorney General’s office.

“I don’t see anything that shows we sent anything, but there’s nothing on there that shows where it should be sent,” she said.

Bond confirmed with her deputy clerks that the DA’s document had not been sent there. It hadn’t been sent because Jerry Jones’ document didn’t indicate who or where the motion should be sent, though it asked the Clerk of Court’s office to handle the matter.

“I checked and nothing was sent,” Bond said. “But there’s nothing on here showing us who at the Attorney General’s office should receive it or where even to send it.”

Bond told The Ouachita Citizen that the deputy clerk, B.J. Graham, who accepted Jerry Jones’ filing no longer worked at the Clerk of Court’s office. Graham had quit, according to Bond.

According to Bond, normally a mover in a legal matter will either indicate they have sent copies of the filing to other parties in the matter. If the filing does not bear the name, address or contact information of the person it should be sent to, like the DA’s filing, then the mover will attach a cover sheet with instructions, Bond said.

“Most of the time they say please serve to so-and-so, or it shows that they’ve already sent copies, but there are no instructions, either on a cover sheet or on the motion itself,” Bond said.

Jones’ motion to recuse was later signed as a judicial order by Judge Carl Sharp: “It is ordered that the Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s Office is recused from the above captioned case and same be sent to the Attorney General’s Office.”

Sharp is a defendant in both Palowsky’s and Marchman’s lawsuits. He is accused of covering up Campbell’s activities. Sharp also is one of the judges for whom Campbell clerks. Additionally, Sharp defended Campbell against the payroll fraud allegations during an interview with Inspector General investigators, according to Street’s letter.

Jerry Jones’ motion to recuse and Sharp’s order are available for viewing at www.ouachitacitizen.com

The Ouachita Citizen contacted the Attorney General’s office on numerous occasions, through telephone and email, to ask whether they had received any correspondence from Jerry Jones, including his recusal. Attorney General spokesperson Ruth Wisher suddenly ceased all communications with The Ouachita Citizen last week in spite of earlier pledging to answer the newspaper’s questions by Thursday, May 19. Attorney General Jeff Landry and Assistant Attorney General Shannon Dirmann also did not respond to communications from The Ouachita Citizen.

Two days after the Attorney General office’s last communication with The Ouachita Citizen concerning its questions, Landry’s office filed a pleading in Marchman’s federal lawsuit on behalf of Caldwell, the former Attorney General and defendant in the judge’s lawsuit.

Absence of investigation a key point in public records dispute

The Ouachita Citizen recently learned Jones did not refer the newspaper’s criminal complaint to some authorities investigating the court. Inspector General Stephen Street said state law protecting Inspector General records meant he could not reveal whether Jerry Jones had sent his office the newspaper’s criminal complaint or not.

“Due to OIG (Office of Inspector General) statutory confidentiality, I am unable to confirm or deny the receipt of the complaint to which you refer,” Street wrote in an email.

However, State Police did not receive the newspaper’s criminal complaint, according to Cain, the State Police spokesman.

“We are unaware of any complaint from The Ouachita Citizen through the DA’s office,” Cain said.

The Attorney General’s office did not respond to questions from The Ouachita Citizen about whether Jerry Jones had sent them this newspaper’s criminal complaint.

The Ouachita Citizen‘s criminal complaint was prompted by the district court’s refusal to produce public records from Campbell’s personnel file that could shed light on the allegations of payroll fraud and document destruction. The day after The Ouachita Citizen submitted its criminal complaint, the court sued the newspaper, asking for an ad hoc judge to determine whether Campbell’s right to privacy outweighed the public’s right to know.

In spite of The Ouachita Citizen submitting its criminal complaint with Jones in March 2015, there was no investigation called to target the court until after an ad hoc judge had ruled against this newspaper, declaring Campbell’s personnel file off-limits to public records requests.

During a court hearing before the ad hoc judge, The Ouachita Citizen argued the public should be granted access to Campbell’s personnel file since its public records requests – stemming from the allegations of payroll fraud – concerned public tax dollars (referred below as the “public fisc”). In response, the court argued there was no need for judicial intervention to make Campbell’s personnel file available to the public since the district attorney could exert his office’s authority to investigate if there were any reasonable grounds present in the newspaper’s criminal complaint.

Delivering the court’s argument was Monroe attorney Jon Guice, who also represented the five district court judges in Palowsky’s lawsuit and is a defendant in Marchman’s lawsuit.

“The response to his argument about the protection of the public fisc is it is handled by the law and you need not intervene in that,” Guice continued during the May 19, 2015 hearing on the public records requests. “His client (The Ouachita Citizen) is well aware that the legislative auditor sent a copy of its findings to the district attorney.

“They have also asked the district attorney to avail himself of that report and to do his duties to investigate, and if there is an issue there for him to address it. So, this court need not feel as though it has a duty of protection of the public fisc when there is an expressed officer, i.e., the district attorney who the legislative auditor has provided its findings and whom the paper has asked to honor his obligation. So if there is something there then that’s the way that is to be handled.”

After the ad hoc judge ruled against The Ouachita Citizen, details in Palowsky’s and Marchman’s lawsuits have suggested Guice, Ben Jones, the court administrator, and other court officials manipulated the documents present in Campbell’s personnel file before the ad hoc judge reviewed it to determine whether it was subject to The Ouachita Citizen‘s public records requests.

Jerry Jones later told The Ouachita Citizen he had agreed with Ben Jones to postpone acting on The Ouachita Citizen‘s criminal complaint until after the ad hoc judge had ruled in the court’s case against the newspaper.

When Ben Jones was asked about that arrangement during a June 30, 2015 interview, he said, “I am not prepared to say I had any agreement with Jerry Jones to wait until after the final judgment but he has elected, obviously, to delay any action until, I mean, to my knowledge, no action has been taken so far.”

“I have no idea when any action might be taken, but I take him at his word that he will respond to the complaint, and he has indicated that he would honor his obligation to respond to the complaint,” Ben Jones continued. “That’s all I can tell you about that. I have talked to him, but I’m not at liberty to say everything about that conversation.

“But I will say this to you. I know Jerry Jones and I am convinced that any investigation that he initiates will be one done with integrity. I absolutely believe that to be the case. He will go wherever the findings take him. That’s how he is, and that’s a good thing. It is our expectation that he will show us no special privileges or special deference. I expect him to respond to the request that he investigate with integrity, and I don’t fear that at all.”

 

Read Full Post »

What’s the price of your legislator? It depends on the issue, but Edmonson’s confirmation sale was comparatively cheap

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Legislature, Legislators, PACs, Politicians, State Police, Transparency on May 23, 2016| 2 Comments »

Rumor has it a newly-elected legislator from North Louisiana was told by a lobbyist friend there was so much at the Capitol that “You could just pick it up off the floor.”

Arriving for his inauguration back in January, he walked up the 50 steps and into the Capitol rotunda. He was no sooner in the door when he spotted a $100 bill lying on the floor. He looked at it a moment and then grunted and walked past the bill, saying, “Hmpf, I’ll pick you up tomorrow. I’m not working on my first day in Baton Rouge.” (With apologies to the late comic Brother Dave Gardner.)

That said, what’s the price of a reliable legislator these days?

Obviously, the going rate depends on a lot of factors. If, for instance, 97 oil and gas companies want a lawsuit against them for destroying Louisiana’s coastal marshlands, the price is pretty high as evidenced by the millions of dollars poured into political campaigns and lobbying efforts.

The oil companies, with virtually unlimited financial resources, spent like a drunken sailor by spreading the money around among legislators and political action committees.

On other issues, the answer might be not so much.

Take, for example, the confirmation of Mike Edmonson as Superintendent of State Police. That price apparently is a little north of $76,000.

The Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association obviously does not have the bottomless expense account enjoyed by the oil companies but it still manages to spread its money around pretty generously through its own political action committee, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ PAC.

But for the purposes of this one issue—the confirmation hearings last Wednesday on Edmonson’s reappointment by Gov. John Bel Edwards, we will concentrate on only a few recipients—members of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, the President of the Senate and a handful of key legislative caucuses.

Last week, we watched the pathetically transparent attempt by members of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee to avoid all questions about Edmonson’s record of allowing payroll fraud and other transgressions by those under his command. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/05/18/16942/

Somewhat puzzled by the collective amnesia of the committee (sarcasm) and its equally apparent determination not to thoroughly vet certain nominees while grilling others (realism), we thought we’d peel back the layers and take a peek at campaign contributions to members of the committee.

What we discovered proved interesting, to say the least.

Take committee Chairperson Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans), who also serves as Chairperson of the Louisiana Democratic Party:

  • Karen Carter Peterson: $3,100 in director contributions from the Sheriffs’ PAC;
  • The Women’s Caucus: $3,500;
  • The Louisiana Democratic Campaign Committee: $13,000;
  • The Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus: $25,500.

Democrats and Republicans alike benefited from the sheriffs’ PAC:

  • Wesley Bishop (D-New Orleans), vice chairperson of the committee: $1,000;
  • Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans): $4,250;
  • Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport): $1,600
  • Louisiana Republican Legislative Delegation: $8,800;
  • Jack Donahue (R-Mandeville): $2,000;
  • Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro): $3,700;
  • Neil Riser (R-Columbia): $500;
  • Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe): $4,700

And just in case you might think the sheriffs’ influence was concentrated on just the committee members, the PAC also contributed $4,800 to Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego). You think he may have whispered in the ears of committee members to go light on Edmonson?

Granted, we’re not talking about a lot of money here—especially considering some of the aforementioned contributions date back to 2003. But it’s a steady flow of contributions to legislators who are restricted by the amount from any one contributor during a single election cycle ($2,500) is never ignored by the recipient. While the amounts of their contributions are lower, so, too, are their expenses because their districts are not statewide. It’s also enough to discourage legislators from taking the chance of pissing off the Sheriffs’ Association.

And while $76,000 contributed since 2003 may not seem like a lot, when you take into consideration the Sheriffs’ PAC contributed more than $794,000 on all candidates since that time—the vast majority of those legislators—it’s much easier to see how much more influence is purchased when the money is spread across the political landscape.

And to be sure, the Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ PAC doesn’t overlook those other legislators. The list is long and nearly every member of the legislator has received at least one contribution from the PAC. Here is the complete list of SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION CONTRIBUTIONS since 2003.

What’s the price of your legislator?

Read Full Post »

Monroe City Court clerk’s office unable to locate appellate court’s 18-year-old reversal of Monroe veteran’s sentence

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Judges, Transparency on May 8, 2016| Leave a Comment »

The American justice system is designed to protect the rights of every citizen with no consideration given to gender, race, or social standing. Even those accused of the most heinous crimes are entitled to legal counsel and a fair trial.

Or so we were told in high school civics class.

But it’s no secret that justice is not dispensed evenly in our court system. Some can afford the very best in legal representation (some even contribute to the election campaigns of judges). Others must rely on understaffed, underpaid public defenders for their legal counsel.

Despite what we learned in school, it’s not a level playing field.

Monroe resident Lester Paster is learning that the hard way.

Before we go any further, it should be pointed out that Paster is not a criminal and his skirmishes with the law are misdemeanors and have been relegated to Monroe City Court.

City court isn’t exactly the Supreme Court, but the court level isn’t supposed to matter. (Sheldon Cooper, everyone’s favorite nerd on The Big Bang Theory, in one of the funnier episodes of that show, referred to a traffic court judge as presiding over “the kiddie table” of his profession, a remark that landed him in a holding cell for a while.)

Paster, who picketed Monroe City Court nearly 19 years ago, on July 9, 1997, was cited for LA. R.S. 14:401, which prohibits “Demonstrations in or near building housing a court of occupied as residence by judge, juror, witness or court officer.”

For violating that obscure law, he was sentenced to a fine of $50. In default of payment, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail with all but five days suspended.

He appealed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the offense carries a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both.

A defendant charged with a misdemeanor in which the punishment may be a fined in excess of $1,000 or imprisonment for more than six months “shall be tried by a jury of six jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict,” the First Circuit decision said.

The appeal court further said the defendant “Must have been advised of and waived his right to a jury trial before proceeding to trial” and that the accused in a criminal proceeding “has the right to assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Because the record failed to reflect that Paster was advised of his right to legal counsel or of his right to a trial by jury or that he ever waived those rights, the Second Circuit set aside Paster’s conviction and sentence and remanded it back to Monroe City Court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

That opinion was handed down on Dec. 22, 1997. http://veterans4justice.org/Appeal_Judgement.html

So what has happened to Paster’s case in the ensuing 18 years, four months?

Well, no one seems to know.

Paster has checked with the Monroe City Court clerk but the clerk’s office doesn’t seem to have any record of his case. No record of his trial and no record of the Second Circuit’s decision.

“My entire record has disappeared,” Paster told LouisianaVoice.

It’s not the kind of sloppy record keeping that one would think the Second Circuit would take lightly.

What’s the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor?

Read Full Post »

LSP fires state trooper following LouisianaVoice inquiry but investigation appears to have overlooked his 3 supervisors

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Fraud, Public Records, State Police, Transparency on May 5, 2016| 9 Comments »

LouisianaVoice submitted numerous public records request for documents to confirm allegations of payroll fraud by Trooper Ronald Picou of Beauregard Parish. We were refused those documents because they were deemed part of an ongoing investigation. Since the investigation ended, however, we resubmitted our request and subsequently received documents relating to the investigation. Picou was terminated from the Louisiana State Police effective March 31, 2016 for the following reasons:

  1. Code of conduct and ethics – Neglect of duty
  2. MDT, MVR, Internet/ Intranet
  3. MDT, MVR, Internet/ Intranet
  4. Code of conduct and ethics – False Statements
  5. Secondary Employment/Personal Investments
  6. Secondary Employment/Personal Investments
  7. Secondary Employment/Personal Investments
  8. Secondary Employment/Personal Investments

When Supervision allows it, why not?

The LSP investigation confirmed what was reported to LouisianaVoice. The investigation file showed Picou was investigated in 2013 for conducting secondary employment while on duty in response to an anonymous complaint. The anonymous complaint was not limited to secondary employment but Picou’s friend Captain Chris Guillory was in charge of the investigation. Picou was cleared of all wrongdoing by Guillory. Picou was also supervised by Jim Jacobsen (Former candidate for Beauregard Sheriff). Jacobsen published an exoneration letter issued to Picou from 2013. Jacobsen suggested Picou did nothing wrong. The new investigation confirms Picou was in violation of “Neglect of Duty” in 2013 while under the supervision of Jacobsen.

The file further shows Picou was emboldened by the exoneration because it continued until the beginning of the more recent investigation in 2015. After Jacobsen retired, Picou was supervised by Lieutenant Paul Brady. The reports show Picou continued his actions until he was removed from the supervision of Brady. Picou’s actions were not possible without the approval of Jacobsen, Guillory, and Brady. LouisianaVoice is not aware if any of the supervisors were held accountable for their apparent lax supervision.

Breakdown of findings:

  • Code of conduct and ethics: Neglect of duty (Sleeping on duty);
  • MDT, MVR, Internet/Intranet: (Using inappropriate and profane language on the in car computer);
  • MDT, MVR, Internet/Intranet: (Failing to stay logged in to in car computer the entire shift);
  • Code of conduct and ethics: False Statements (Lying about delivering parts to a job site while on duty, in a state police vehicle, and outside the Troop D area and lying about being in compliance with secondary employment policy)
  • Secondary Employment/Personal Investments: (Failing to submit secondary employment authorization while working/ partial owner of Bois Clair Construction);
  • Secondary Employment/Personal Investments: (Delivering parts to a job site while in a state police vehicle, on duty, and outside the Troop D area);
  • Secondary Employment/Personal Investments: (Failure to submit a termination of secondary employment after selling interest in Bois Clair);
  • Secondary Employment/Personal Investments: (Failure to obtain approval for secondary employment for TRP Construction and for a grass cutting service).

MDT Violations

The MDT is an in-car computer. Picou violated LSP policy for the following messages:

  • “Yep, that (expletive) cursed me out. (Expletive) was going southbound”
  • “It’s hotter than two goats (expletive) in a pepper patch.”
  • “Must be some good (expletive).”
  • “Will go in low and fast, hit them hard, then pull out. Never mind, I’m getting that mixed up with what I did last night with (deleted).”

Sleeping on duty

Employees of Bois Clair reported Picou “spoke freely of taking safety naps while on duty as if they were allowed.” One witness reported he went to Picou’s residence in the middle of the day and he answered the door wearing a T-shirt and shorts holding a portable radio. Another witness also reported Picou said he took safety naps while on duty at his residence. The witness further reported he went to Picou’s house and he answered the door in a T-shirt with a radio clipped to his shorts. The witness said Picou stated when he gets a call, he gets dressed and leaves. A third witness who worked with Picou also reported Picou mentioned safety naps. Picou admitted to sleeping on duty occasionally but did not remember how often or for how long.

Picou’s own words taken from in car computer text messages sent to other LSP Troopers or supervisors supported the allegations. The messages are accessible by supervision at any time. The messages were before and after the 2013 investigation. This further supports Picou did not have to hide his activities because supervision was derelict and or accommodating. The messages are below:

  • “And on top of that, I was just about to take my safety nap.”
  • “How can a person even think about sleeping with all this noise on the radio?”
  • “Been at the house all day. Not too bad though. I need to get off the couch, my back was starting to hurt”
  • “Look’ I’m actually working at this time of the day!”

LouisianaVoice asked for six months of radio logs we have yet to receive. We reported Picou was working only a small portion of his shift. He was reported to be making several stops at the beginning of his shift and abandoning the public and fellow officers for the remainder of the shift. We received reports Picou was completely absent from some shifts. LSP IA investigations did not document a review of the radio logs but they did review Daily Activity Reports (DARS). The investigation indicated they started their review in 2013 although our reports indicate this was going on long before. The investigators found 50 days of DARS with no enforcement activities. That is 50 days of no work for which he was paid.

Investigators compared those days with the in car computer log-off times. The log-off times supported LouisianaVoice’s initial allegations. The investigators did not document inquiry into the much higher number of days with only a few hours of work.

Public payroll fraud

LRS 14:128138.  Public payroll fraud

Public payroll fraud is committed when:

(1)  Any person shall knowingly receive any payment or compensation, or knowingly permit his name to be carried on any employment list or payroll for any payment or compensation from the state, for services not actually rendered by himself, or for services grossly inadequate for the payment or compensation received or to be received according to such employment list or payroll; or

 (2)  Any public officer or public employee shall carry, cause to be carried, or permit to be carried, directly or indirectly, upon the employment list or payroll of his office, the name of any person as employee, or shall pay any employee, with knowledge that such employee is receiving payment or compensation for services not actually rendered by said employee or for services grossly inadequate for such payment or compensation.

That raises the question of whether this is public payroll fraud not only by Picou, but by Guillory, and Brady as well. Taxpayers paid this man to sleep, work at his personal company, and worse, fail to provide the protection to the citizens and his fellow law enforcement officers. His supervision allowed it. He was reported for it and they still allowed it. One aspect of this is officer safety. Picou was allowed to be silent for entire shifts. Can you imagine the tragedy if something were to happen and no one ever bother to check on an officer?

LSP investigators brushed the felony off with this statement:

Although, there were occasions where Picou had limited or no activity on his shift, investigators were unable to conclusively determine that Tpr. Picou was not performing his duties. Furthermore, there was no pattern suggesting that Tpr. Picou’s lack of activities were related to his secondary employment.

We would like to give credit where it is due. LSP IA did an excellent job with this investigation excluding the above statement and the failure to investigate supervision. The statement is completely inconsistent with the evidence found in the investigation. We believe the above statement was authored by Edmonson to protect his friend, Captain Guillory.

Picou is wrong and this termination is justified. Picou could have been saved from himself with adequate, correction, any supervision. The blame falls on one but should be shared among those responsible for his supervision (Jacobsen, Brady, and Guillory). The trick is if Edmonson finds Picou committed payroll fraud, he must do the same for Picou’s supervisors. Edmonson has shown he will protect his friends at all costs. His response to deal with Guillory was to remove him from Troop D and give him a larger command in LSP’s Transportation and Environmental Safety Section (TESS).

Read Full Post »

Insight into Nungesser’s contempt for laws revealed in his blatant disregard for public records demands, other actions

Posted in Boards, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Finances, Fraud, Judges, Lawsuits, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on April 26, 2016| 10 Comments »

How would a public official, say a parish president, manage to skirt the Louisiana public records laws and ignore votes of the parish council and get away with it?

Well, if you’re Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, and if you had 18 writs of mandamus pending against you for non-compliance, you would simply ride out the storm until your newly-elected, hand-picked council takes office and have a friendly council member move to rescind any pending adverse action.

That’s precisely what Nungesser did in late 2010. He blatantly ignored the law and waited out his adversaries. And it apparently worked.

No wonder he thought he could do an end run around Gov. John Bel Edwards by conspiring with State Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere in that completely embarrassing Iraqiscam-super tanker-proposal-to-cure-Louisiana-of-its-fiscal-problems that left him—and Villere—with a little something more disgusting than egg all over their faces.

With ample evidence of his contempt for the law prior to becoming lieutenant governor and his willing violation of protocol since becoming the second-highest elected official in the state, can there be any reasonable expectation of significant change in his conspiring makeup during the rest of what is almost certain to be a single term.

Probably not. He is what he is: an underhanded politician fully capable of any action, legal or otherwise, that will enhance the career and burnish the public image of William Harold “Billy” Nungesser.

He is Bobby Jindal without the charm. He is Chris Christie without the finesse. He is Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and Sam Brownback rolled into one, but without their compassion. In short, he is Billy Nungesser, yet another electoral accident visited upon unsuspecting—or uncaring—Louisiana voters, a man worthy of the scorn of Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell before it was cool to be scornful of the man. But that’s a story for another day and it will have to wait.

Right now there is his record as Plaquemines Parish President—a job he won by a large majority, by the way—that begs closer examination as a clue into what we expect of him as lieutenant governor, a peek already provided by that ridiculous Iraqi oil tanker scam blunder.

Actually, Nungesser’s defiance of the parish council began way back on July 23, 2009, when the council voted to direct the council attorney to enforce a parish ordinance by “shutting down the operations of all unpermitted borrow pits located within the parish.” That was followed on Dec. 10, 2009, by a council resolution to authorize and direct the council attorney “to take any and all legal action, including but not limited to the filing for injunctive relief and/or mandamus” to obtain and examine “all transactions (including but not limited to any and all construction contracts, capital projects, professional contracts, cooperative endeavor agreements and intergovernmental agreements) entered into by and all expenditures incurred by the parish through the office of the Parish Presidents (or any of its departments or agencies) since January 1, 2007.”

Res 09-253 Mandamus-borrow pits, seal, parish decal

Res 09-533 any and all legal action by Council Attorney or Designee

A writ of mandamus is Latin for “we order” and is defined as a writ which “orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.” http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1203

Each of the 16 subsequent similar actions by the council were taken in 2010 in the months leading up and immediately following the October 2, 2010, elections for parish council and parish president.

Seven of the 18 resolutions passed by the council were for the purpose of forcing Nungesser to comply with public records requests.

Besides the 2009 resolutions cited above, subsequent resolutions passed by the Plaquemines Parish Council during 2010 directing:

May 27—Nungesser to turn over copies of any “and all contracts, cooperative endeavor agreements or memos of understanding…from April 15, 2010, related to the effects of the Deep Water Horizon Incident, through the effective date of the resolution…” and a second calling for Nungesser to submit to the council copies of “any and all contracts, financial records, cooperative endeavor agreements or memos of understanding…from January 1, 2007 through the date of the resolution.

Res 10-199 All contracts etc from Pres since 4-15-10

Res 10-198 All contracts etc from Pres since 1-1-07

July 8—Nungesser to sign all revenue bonds approved by the council on Feb. 11, 2010, in the amount of $18 million. Res 10-251 Directing Pres to sign $18M bond documents or Mandamus filed

July 22—Nungesser to produce documents “previously requested by the…council Audit Committee and the parish council pursuant to” one of the May 27 resolutions “to compel him to produce any and all documents pertaining to all of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) expenditures.

Res 10-273 Mandamus for records requests

August 12—The council’s legal department to initiate legal proceedings if necessary in order to obtain a copy of the agreement for council fiscal agent from June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2010 pursuant to the council’s first request for the document made on June 29, 2010. Res 10-294 Fiscal Agent PRR

October 28—The council’s legal department to initiate legal action to compel Nungesser “to enter into and execute a purchase agreement with two realty companies for six acres to be used for a recreation park, athletic fields, walking track and picnic area pursuant to the council’s approval of the purchase on June 26, 2008. Res 10-463 Resol mandamus to execute purchase agree with White Oak

November 11—The council’s legal department to initiate legal action to compel Nungesser “to assist with and finalize all plans for design and engineering as needed for the raising of an East Bank levee; the council’s legal department to initiate legal proceedings to compel Nungesser to honor a contract with a New Orleans law firm and to issue payment for services rendered by firm attorney Robert Barnett; the council’s legal department to take legal action to force Nungesser to transfer $3 million in funds to a parish levee project; Nungesser to provide “any and all documents, pleadings, emails, facsimiles, correspondence, letters, memorandums, interoffice documentation and intra-office documentation generated by Stephen Braud” as an attorney for the parish from Jan. 1, 2010, to date of the resolution.

Res 10-486 Mandmaus to assist with plans for raising EB levee

Res 10-485 Res No. 10-485 authorizing Mandamaus to pay Guste, Barnett

Res 10-482 mandamus transfer LRA EB Consolidated Complex Project to EB Non Fede

Res 10-481 Braud Pub Rec Request and mandamus

December 9—Nungesser to provide “any and all project worksheets, contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, etc., relative to FEMA funding executed by Nungesser” from Jan. 1, 2007, to the date of the resolution; Nungesser to provide a copy of “any and all professional services contracts” between the parish and All South Consulting Engineers from Jan. 1, 2007, to the date of the resolution; the parish legal counsel to initiate against Nungesser in order to force him to begin a resurfacing/striping project on LA. 15; the council legal department to initiate legal proceedings to compel Nungesser to remove “all movables” from the Ft. Jackson Port. Res 10-512 directing pres to submit all documents for FEMA funding from 1-1-07

Res 10-511 Mandamus directing pres to submit all contracts with AllSouth from 1-1-07

Res 10-514 Authorize Council legal dept to file mandamus to resurface hwy 15

Res 10-520 Ft Jackson Port MSRC Building-file Mandamus

December 31—Nungesser to enter into a contract with Deep South Associates; Nungesser to sign “any and all documents” with Fenstermaker & Associates for the engineering and the hiring of a surveyor to identify parish right of way and levee footprint for a levee lift in the parish.

Res 10-521 rober’t draft Deep South Associates

Res 10-524 Fenster Maker

Failure by Nungesser to comply with council actions regarding infrastructure work and contracts, provided such action was legal, could conceivably have been construed as malfeasance.

But the question of what is and what is not considered public record is clearly defined in L.S. 44:1 et seq. LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

So what did Nungesser do?

Nothing, absolutely nothing—except perhaps to conspire with allies on the council to let the clock run until new members on the council would give him a majority to do as he pleased, including having the 18 resolutions rescinded.

And that’s precisely what happened.

Consider an email from Stuart Guey, Jr., a council member firmly entrenched in Nungesser’s camp. The email, written on April 8, 2011, was written to Assistant Parish Attorney Michael Mullin and copied to other council members, including Nungesser, said:

“I received a letter from (retired Baton Rouge State District Judge) Frank Foil regarding his appointment as ad hoc judge on the remaining Mandamus suits. It would be wonderful if the suits all can be resolved. I asked that resolutions be prepared for introduction to dismiss all writs but all Council members will have to know that the requested information has been compiled and where to view the information before it would be voted upon. I understand all the requested information may be on a disc that can be sent to everyone. If the information, in any format, is not provided to all Council members in a timely manner we will have to solicit legal counsel and proceed with the litigation. I hope this can be prevented. Please let me know what can be done.”

And, of course, once the resolutions to dismiss were put to a council vote, the writs conveniently went away.

Such is the type of ruthless control Nungesser exercised in Plaquemines Parish—somewhat reminiscent to the way old Leander Perez once reigned supreme in Plaquemines.

But such tactics aren’t going to fly in Baton Rouge.

LouisianaVoice currently has public records requests pending with Nungesser’s office and we aren’t going to wait much longer for a response. We requested—and received—his appointment calendar since taking office but we have yet to receive a response of any description on our requests for emails and other correspondence.

Nungesser may think that he’s omnipotent and that a little ol’ pissant writer out in Denham Springs doesn’t have a chance against the clout of the lieutenant governor’s and the Louisiana Attorney General’s offices, should the latter be called in to defend him.

But we have taken the state to court on three occasions over the non-production of public records and we will not hesitate to do so again. That’s because we have that one very important thing on our side: the Louisiana Constitution and we aren’t afraid to smack Nungesser upside the head with it.

And if we do, there won’t be a Plaquemines Parish Council to bail him out.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »