Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

When we make a mistake in our attempts to keep you informed about your state government and its elected officials, we make it a point to make amends as quickly and as accurately as possible in order to be fair to all concerned.

With that in mind, we owe a sincere apology for inadvertently misrepresenting the amount of campaign contributions received by certain legislators in our Wednesday post about the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Gordon Dove (R-Houma), State Sen. Robert Adley (R-Benton) and Sen. Bret Allain (R-Franklin).

You may remember that we said that Adley had received $70,500 in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests and that Dove and Allain received $10,500 and $6,800, respectively.

We were incorrect and in fairness to them, we want to give the correct figures here and now:

  • Sen. Robert Adley: $597,950;
  • Sen. Bret Allain: $34,139;
  • Rep. Gordon Dove: $28,950.

There, now. We certainly feel better for having cleared the air and we hope the honorable legislators will forgive us our error.

We do not have a revised amount of oil and gas-related campaign contributions for Gov. Bobby Jindal, but we have confirmed that it is at least $545,000, most probably more. A lot more.

If there are any lingering doubts out there that politicians are bought and sold by the special interests like so many sacks of potatoes, consider the money that has been spread among our state lawmakers—just from the oil and gas interests:

  • The 144 incumbent legislators (remember, this does not include those who have left office) have received more than $5.8 million in campaign contributions by a single special interest group—oil and gas. That comes to an average of $40,357 per legislator.
  • For the 39 current members of the Louisiana Senate, the aggregate is a little north of $2.8 million, or $51,100 each.
  • A total of $2.99 million was distributed among the 105 House members—an average of $28, 458 each, the figures show.

So, the obvious question is: what do the oil and gas interests expect in return—other than the continuation of the same good, clean government to which we have grown so accustomed in Louisiana?

How about the dismissal of a pesky lawsuit that could result in the 97 oil companies having to spend some of their hard-earned profits to clean up and restore the state’s wetlands that they have destroyed over decades of misuse and abuse.

Just think what a bummer it would be if ExxonMobil had to dip into that $8.35 billion in net profits it earned during the last quarter of 2013. Same for Shell, with its $2.9 billion in net profits for the final quarter of last year. I mean, c’mon, you have to feel some sympathy for ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson who only makes $2.72 million per year—in salary, that is. An adverse court decision could impact his annual bonus of $3.7 million (plus 225,000 shares of restricted stock worth another $21.3 million). That’s $27.7 million in 2013 alone. http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/04/11/exxon-ceo-2013-compensation-falls-278519336/

So, by obtaining a dismissal of litigation—before it ever goes to trial or even to the discovery stage—that could conceivably cost oil companies several hundred million dollars by spreading $5.8 million around represents a nice return on investment.

And make no mistake about it: campaign contributions are just that—investments. Nothing more, nothing less. More specifically, they are investments not in good government, but in business. And politics is a business—a very dirty business.

Politics long ago, even before the repugnant Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2010, took the citizens of this country and this state out of the equation, eliminated us from the decision-making process on issues that clearly affect our lives each and every day.

And if you still believe our government is of the people, by the people and for the people, then you are either wonderfully naïve or pitifully delusional.

Not all the political back scratching, vote buying and deal making takes place in Washington. With far too few exceptions, it’s as close as our nearest state senator, state representative Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member and yes, even our governor. Especially our governor, the one who supposedly sets the moral tone for all other elected officials.

And the investments of the oil and gas interests in lawmakers who are supposed to be representing the interests of the state and its citizens are only indicative of a much larger problem, a problem that undermines the trust in the entire body politic, in the political process itself.

Can it be an accident that the seven members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee received an average of $62,902 each from oil interests—$11,785 more than the average for the 32 senators not assigned to that committee?

Do you think it a coincidence that the 19 members of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment received an average of $31,670—again, $3,200 more than the average for the remaining House membership?

Oil and gas contributions for the Senate committee members totaled $462,150 and for the House committee members, $394,150—a grand total of $856,300.

And then there is the seven-member Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, chaired by Sen. Mike Walsworth, or as one blogger refers to him, Walsworthless, (R-West Monroe), whose $46,775 was eclipsed by fellow committee member Sen. Dale Erdy (R-Livingston), who raked in $118,400 in donations from oil and gas.

In all, seven senators, including Adley, Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches) and Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego), received in excess of $100,000 from oil and gas interests. Alario, the poster child for using campaign funds for private purposes, received $124,400. That’s a lot of Saints and LSU football tickets and, with his expensive eating habits, a couple of gourmet meals at one of New Orleans’ finer restaurants.

Over on the House side, only one member received more than $100,000. But that just happened to be House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles). How’s that for strategic placement of your money?

And then there is Sen. Elbert Guillory (R/D/R-Opelousas) the carpetbagger from Seattle who is an announced candidate for lieutenant governor. Guillory seems to pop up anywhere there are contributions to be had. A member of the Senate Judiciary C Committee, he managed to pull in $130,400, second only to Adley’s $597,950.

These are just some of the highlights of the data we received, courtesy of Moss Robeson of Brooklyn, N.Y., whom we would like to thank for conducting a more thorough data search and for crunching the numbers for us. Working as an intern on behalf of John Barry and the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East (SFLPA-E), he not only ran the numbers on the Senate and members of the House Committee on Natural Resources, he ran them for every member of the entire legislature.

After all, if Gov. Jindal can continue pulling in talent from out of state, then why not bring Ross in for this project—especially since his mom resides in New Orleans?

For the complete list compiled by Robeson, click here: Copy of Campaign Contributions

Here is the way the full House voted on SB 469 on Thursday:

YEAS:

Alario

Adams

Arnold

Barras

Berthelot

Billiot

Bishop, S.

Broadwater

Burford

Burns, H.

Burns, T.

Burrell

Carmody

Carter

Champagne

Chaney

Cromer

Danahay

Dove

Fannin

Garofalo

Geymann

Gisclair

Guinn

Harris

Harrison

Havard

Henry

Hensgens

Hodges

Hoffmann

Honore

Howard

Ivey

Jones

Landry, N.

Leopold

Lorusso

Mack

Miller

Morris, Jay

Morris, Jim

Ponti

Pope

Price

Pugh

Pylant

Reynolds

Richard

Robideaux

Schexnayder

Schroder

Seabaugh

Simon

Stokes

Thibaut

Thierry

Thompson

Whitney

Total — 59

 

NAYS

Anders

Armes

Badon

Barrow

Bishop, W.

Brown

Connick

Cox

Dixon

Edwards

Foil

Franklin

Greene

Guillory

Hazel

Hill

Hunter

Jackson

James

Jefferson

Johnson

Lambert

Landry, T.

LeBas

Leger

Lopinto

Montoucet

Moreno

Norton

Ortego

Pearson

Pierre

Ritchie

Shadoin

Smith

Williams, A.

Williams, P.

Willmott

Woodruff

Total – 39

 

ABSENT

Abramson

Gaines

Hollis

Huval

St. Germain

Talbot

Total — 6

 

Read Full Post »

While Gov. Bobby Jindal continues to flit around the country like a hummingbird on amphetamines, he apparently can be secure in the knowledge that his lackeys in the Louisiana Legislature will have his back in protecting the 97 oil companies that have done so much damage to Louisiana’s coastline and marshlands.

And at least one legislator has been cited for illegal dumping in another state even as he votes to ensure the oil companies may continue to destroy our wetlands with impunity.

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East’s (SFLPA-E) filed its landmark lawsuit nearly a year ago and the politicians who feed on the mother’s milk called oil and gas immediately closed ranks behind the companies that have destroyed the marshes and in so doing, left the entire Louisiana coastline, from Buras to Lake Charles—and New Orleans—vulnerable to more tragic hurricane destruction like that inflicted by 2005’s Katrina and Rita.

Sen. Robert Adley, R-Benton, who has benefitted from a minimum of $70,500 in oil and gas contributions and armed with predictable righteous indignation, came to the rescue like the Lone Ranger, complete with the silver bullets of anti-lawsuit legislation. He was followed in quick succession by a flood of similar bills from other shameless oil money-dependent lawmakers—the protectors of Louisiana’s citizenry from the bad old lawsuits and greedy lawyers, all following the lead of Jindal who condemned the litigation as if it were an attack on motherhood itself.

One of those bills, SB 469, by Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, was authored by our old friend Jimmy Faircloth. Allain was recipient of at least $6,800 in oil money, his campaign records show. The bill, co-sponsored by Adley, zipped through the Senate by a 24-13 margin with two absentees.

SB 469 “provides that no state or local governmental entity may have, nor may pursue, any right or cause of action arising from any activity subject to permitting under present law or certain federal statutes in the coastal area, or arising from or related in any use as defined by present law, regardless of the date such use or activity occurred.”

In plain English, which most of the great unwashed employ in our everyday communications, the bill simply prohibits any entity like SFLPA-E from attempting to hold oil companies accountable through litigation for the destruction they have unleashed with careless abandon on our coastline and marshlands.

But here’s the real kicker: The bill was amended by the House Committee on Natural Resources to make that prohibition retroactive, thus in effect, killing the SFLPA-E attempt to hold the companies legally responsible for cleaning up the mess they created. As the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live was fond of saying, “How convenient.”

How’s that for giving a kid your credit card in a toy store?

So, what makes the committee vote on the amendment so different from any other backroom deal by lawmakers to protect not their constituents but the ones who bankroll their election campaigns?

For starters, we have the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, one Gordon Dove (R-Houma), who voted in favor of the amendment.

gordon dove

(CLICK TO VIEW IMAGE)

Dove, who has been the recipient of at least $10,500 in oil and gas campaign money since 2005, just happens to own a trucking company that was cited last month for dumping radioactive waste in the state of Montana.

http://m.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/company-suspected-of-dumping-radioactive-waste-in-montana-ordered-to/article_e63b89ac-cdc2-11e3-b909-0019bb2963f4.html?mobile_touch=true

Dual Trucking and Transport of Houma has been ordered by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to cease all operations near the Bakken community of Bainville after it was determined that the company was believed to have illegally dumped radioactive oilfield waste in an Eastern Montana landfill over a two-year period.

The Montana Secretary of State listed Dove and Tony Alford of Houma, president of the Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District Board, as principals in the Montana trucking company. Another Montana company, KJK Trucking, lists Dove’s daughter, Jackie Elizabeth Dove (Sye), as its registered agent.

The Montana DEQ said the waste site is only a couple hundred yards upwind from a housing development and is located in a sandy-soiled region where the water table is sufficient high to produce wetlands.

That sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, wait. It was only five months ago that Plaquemine Parish accused BP and Chevron in a federal lawsuit of dumping toxic waste—some of it radioactive—from their drilling operations into the parish’s coastal waters.

Dual was issued a warning nearly two years ago, in September of 2012, to cease operations until it was licensed by DEQ’s Solid Waste Program and the company did begin the permit process but subsequently refused the state’s requests for additional information, saying it was no longer processing oilfield waste and did not require a permit.

But in April of this year, DEQ again inspected the site and found that Dual was still hauling the oilfield waste without a permit.

The Montana regulatory action arose from growing reports of illegally disposed of waste from the Bakken shale oilfield in nearby North Dakota. Garbage bags full of the oilfield sock filters were also discovered in an abandoned North Dakota gas station and on a flatbed trailer near a landfill in that state. Neither of the North Dakota sites has been tied to Dove’s trucking company.

The citation issued to the chairman of the Louisiana Committee on Natural Resources by the State of Montana apparently has no relevance when it comes to the all-important duty of our elected officials to protect the very ones who are destroying our coastline.

But it does raise another important issue.

Gordon Dove is merely symptomatic of a much larger problem in Louisiana and that is one of trust.

For our part, we find it impossible to place any degree of confidence in those who would go against the best interests of our state in favor of prostituting themselves to political benefactors while at the same time flaunting environmental laws in another state and in effect, flipping off the citizens of both states.

The Louisiana official motto “Union, Justice and Confidence” has become a cruel hoax perpetrated on the citizens of Louisiana and Bobby Jindal and Gordon Dove are right out front as the primary proponents. There is no justice nor is there confidence. There is, of course, ample evidence of the unholy union between the big oil donors and those who took oaths to protect the interests of this state.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell (D-Elm Grove) made two important points during an appearance on the Jim Engster Show on Louisiana Public Radio several months ago:

  • As a member of the legislature, he supported former Republican Gov. Dave Treen’s unsuccessful efforts to pass the Coastal Wetlands Environmental Levy (CWEL)—a tax on the transportation of oil and gas through the state’s coastal wetlands;
  • If someone drives his car through your fence, destroys your lawn and a storage building, you would justifiably expect that person or his insurance company to pay for those damages.

But apparently that’s just not the case in Louisiana.

The amended version of SB 469 is scheduled for floor debate in the full House tomorrow (May 29). If you wish to email your legislator, you don’t have much time.

Here are the links to both the House and Senate:

http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Reps/H_Reps_ByName.asp

http://senate.legis.louisiana.gov/Senators/Default.asp

(Click on legislator’s name to access email address and House or Senate phone number.)

Next from LouisianaVoice: a complete list of oil and gas company contributions to all members of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the full Senate.

 

Read Full Post »

 

An interesting civil trial is transpiring at the 19th Judicial District Court. Though estimates vary, if the plaintiffs prevail, about one taxpayer in five in the Greater Baton Rouge area may eventually wind up with a surprise check in the mail.

The trial involves a group of taxpayers, now represented as a class, who have sued the Amite River Basin Commission (ARBC) over what they claim are vastly overpaid property taxes covering construction of the Comite River Diversion Canal. The project was originally envisioned after the massive 1983 flood which resulted in significant backwater flooding long after rains had stopped. The concept behind the project involves providing a sort of relief valve (the Canal) to divert water from the Comite River into the Mississippi River. By lowering the water level of the Comite River, water levels would also be lowered in the Amite River basin in flood-prone areas such as Port Vincent and French Settlement.

What is in dispute is the amount of funding for which the ARBC (through local property owners) is responsible. The original estimate of the project’s construction costs was approximately $120 million (the current estimate is $199 million). Of that $120 million, the Army Corps of Engineers (through the Federal government) was to be responsible for 70% of the construction costs, or $84 million. The remaining $36 million cost was originally designated to be $30 million to the State of Louisiana, and $6 million to the ARBC.

A sidebar to the whole affair is how a Baton Rouge lawyer is legally or ethically able to represent ARBC when he also served as the plaintiff attorney in litigation against the state that could ultimately cost the state from $60 million to $70 million.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have indicated that $6 million was the full extent of the construction costs for which the ARBC was responsible. To date, by way of a 3-mill property tax approved by voters in the District in 2000, combined with a renewal (at 2.65 mills) of that tax in 2010, plaintiff attorneys say about $24.5 million has been collected to date. The suit seeks a refund of the alleged $18.5 million overpayment.

At various stages in the trial, plaintiff attorneys have accused ARBC Executive Director Deitmar Rietschier of financial mismanagement and voter deception in order to “keep a project alive that is on life support.”

The attorneys have argued that Rietschier has an ulterior motive for over-collecting on the tax in order to fund his own $93,000+ annual salary along with his executive secretary’s $38,000 salary.  The board’s executive secretary, Toni Guitrau, also happens to be the Mayor of the Livingston Parish Village of French Settlement.

So, basically, the trial boils down to the claim that taxpayers of the district have been tricked into paying around $1.1 million in salaries for Rietschier and Guitrau during a period for which no funding has been appropriated for the project’s continued construction.

Plaintiff attorney Steve Irving argued that it is virtually impossible to accurately estimate the final cost of the project or if, it may even be completed.

Defense attorney Larry Bankston says there never was any intent to cap the ARBC’s contribution to construction costs at $6 million. He argues that the Canal project remains viable and is fully ongoing. He indicated that he has eight more witnesses to call.

Bankston’s roles as both plaintiff and defense attorney in cases involving the state would appear to pose a conflict of interests. Currently, he is:

  • Legal counsel to the State Auctioneer Licensing Board under a $25,000 contract;
  • Defense attorney for ARBC in its ongoing litigation over the overpayment of taxes to that board;
  • Plaintiff attorney in ongoing litigation against the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, and the state’s Rice Promotion Board and Rice Research Board over claims of excessive assessments against the state’s rice farmers.

Employing the doctrine that “the state is the state is the state,” it would appear that Bankston may have a conflict of interests under the code of ethics which governs attorney representation.

But as we discovered years ago, nothing is ever cut and dried in the legal world. And it’s obvious those in charge of attorney ethics or either ignorant of the subject or protective of their peers—or both.

And so it is with this question. We contacted a number of organizations, including the Attorney Disciplinary Board, the Louisiana Civil Justice Center, and the State Bar Ethics Council and each one punted. Eric K. Barefield of the State Bar Association’s Ethics Council did finally respond to our email question about the propriety of working both sides of Litigation Street but his answer did little to shed light on the issue:

“Thank you for your inquiry. The Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics Advisory Service is designed to provide eligible Louisiana-licensed lawyers with informal, non-binding advice regarding their own prospective conduct and/or ethical dilemmas under the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (the “LRPC”).  According to limitations set by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, we are not permitted to evaluate contemplated disciplinary complaints, to serve as the catalyst for potential complaints or even to comment on the conduct of lawyers other than that of the requesting lawyer. 

“As such, regrettably, we are not permitted to help you evaluate whether the lawyer in your scenario has or may be violating the LRPC nor are we permitted to give you legal advice on matters such as those contained in your e-mail. 

“In addition to the foregoing, if you are concerned about protecting and/or asserting your rights and interests in this matter, perhaps you should strongly consider consulting another lawyer as soon as possible with regard to getting an evaluation of your facts and a legal opinion about your rights, interests and options.  Regrettably, no one on the staff at the LSBA is permitted to offer legal assistance and/or legal advice.”

That rendition of the Bureaucratic Shuffle would easily get a “10” rating on Dancing with the Stars.

Bankston, you may remember, is a former staff attorney for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office, was assistant parish attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish and a member of the Baton Rouge City-Parish Commission before his 1987 election to the Louisiana State Senate.

In 1994, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bankston met in his law office with Fred Goodson, owner of a Slidell video poker truck stop. The FBI later said Bankston and Goodson discussed a plan to manipulate the legislative process in order to protect the interests of video poker companies in exchange for providing key legislators secret financial interests in video poker truck stops.

Bankston was subsequently indicted and convicted on two racketeering counts, one of which was a scheme whereby Goodson would pay Bankston “rent” of $1,555 per month for “non-use” of Bankston’s beachfront condo in Gulf Shores, Alabama—a bribe, according to prosecutors.

Bankston was sentenced to 41 months in prison in 1997 and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.

Released on Nov. 6, 2000, Bankston was subsequently disbarred by the Louisiana Supreme Court on Mar. 9, 2002, retroactive to Nov. 19, 1997, but was re-admitted to practice law on Feb. 5, 2004.

So, now he represents two state boards and is suing two others and a state agency.

And there apparently is no one who can—or will—call a foul in this game.

 

Read Full Post »

With the 2014 regular session of the legislature less than two weeks away, there have already been a couple of interesting developments that could prevent lawmakers from learning how a federal investigation of a major contract came about in the first place.

There already is speculation that two recent resignations in the Jindal administration may have something to do with avoiding testimony before legislative committees that may wish to look into the controversial $284 million contract between the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) and CNSI.

Subpoenas could be issued for Paul Rainwater, Jerry Phillips, and Bruce Greenstein but if they choose to ignore subpoenas, the legislature has options in that legislative subpoenas carry the same weight as a court subpoena provided a legislative subpoena meets certain criteria.

It is, to say the least, curious that former Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater (more recently, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Chief of Staff), and DHH Undersecretary Jerry Phillips resigned only a few days apart and less than a month before the legislature convenes at noon on March 10.

Apparently timing in politics, like in comedy, is everything. Phillips, while giving no specific date for his retirement, did say he would retire “before the start of the session.”

DHH Secretary Kathy Kliebert said Phillips, who has worked for DHH for 25 years, will pursue “other employment options with the state following his retirement.” She said he would be replaced by DHH Deputy Director Jeff Reynolds on (drum roll, please…) March 10.

That, or course, raises the obvious question of whether Phillips will remain conveniently retired until the session adjourns on June 2 before becoming the latest retire-rehire, a popular trend among executive level state employees these days.

Phillips, you may recall was seated next to Greenstein back in June of 2011 when the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee was considering the confirmation of Greenstein as Jindal’s choice for DHH Secretary.

It was Phillips who repeatedly advised Greenstein and defended his boss’s refusal to identify to the committee CNSI as the winner of the 10-year, $30 million-a-year contract to replace DHH’s 23-year-old computer system that adjudicates health care claims and case providers.

Greenstein has previously worked for CNSI and when he refused to identify the contract winner, then-Sen. Rob Marionneaux (D-Livonia) asked, “Are you telling me right now, today, that you’re refusing to tell this committee who’s going to receive that…contract?”

After several more exchanges between Greenstein and Marionneaux, Green said, “I’m not going to be able to say today.”

Sen. Jody Amedee (R-Gonzales) then asked Greenstein, “Who made the decision not to tell us this information under oath?”

“This was from my department…”

“You are the department,” Amedee interrupted. “Who is the person above you? Who is your boss?”

“The governor,” said Greenstein.

“Can you tell me if this company you used to work for—whether or not they got the contract?”

“I can’t discuss the matter.”

“You can, you just choose not to,” Amedee said.

At one point after Greenstein and Phillips repeatedly alluded to the “process and procedure” employed by DHH in awarding contracts, Amedee, in apparent frustration, tossed his pencil over his shoulder and turned away from the witnesses.

Committee Vice-Chair Karen Carter Peterson said, “You don’t want me to know, but you know. Is this what we call transparency?”

Phillips said once the contractor’s name is made public, “it’s the equivalent of an announcement.”

“Do you make the law?” Peterson shot back.

“I interpret the law,” said Phillips, who is an attorney.

“Then you’re not doing a good job. Mr. Secretary (Greenstein), I hope you’re paying attention. How many lawyers do we have on this committee? We make law and yet you choose to follow this gentleman (Phillips).”

“It’s all part of the process,” Phillips said. “It’s (the selection process) done in conjunction with consultation and direction from the procurement folks.”

“In conjunction with whom?” asked Peterson.

“They’re part of the Division of Administration,” he said for the first time, implicating DOA—and Rainwater—in the controversy.

Committee Chairman Robert “Bob” Kostelka (R-Monroe) finally broke in to say, “I don’t know the difference between firewalling and stonewalling but this committee’s concern is whether or not to recommend to the full Senate that these people should be confirmed for the jobs for which they’ve been nominated.

“The much larger issue here is the integrity of the entire DHH. We don’t care about your procedures. We’ve got to determine if we trust the integrity of the people before us. We’re asking you to put aside your procedures and protocol and answer our questions. Knowing that, I don’t see why
you cannot make this committee aware if a former employer of this man is going to win a multi-million dollar contract from the state.”

When Phillips again attempted to invoke “respect for the statute,” Kostelka interrupted. “Again, sir, this has nothing to do with making the award. We’re asking who got the contract. It’s pretty obvious to us that they’re (CNSI) the one getting the contract.”

At that point, Phillips asked if he could confer with Greenstein. The two left the room for 16 minutes and upon their return, Greenstein, after a few more questions, said, “It is CNSI.”

Rainwater, who on Feb. 17, unexpectedly announced his resignation as Jindal’s Chief of Staff, effective Mar. 3, a week before the legislature convenes. He served as Commissioner of Administration from Aug. 9, 2010, until October 15, 2012, when he moved across the street to the governor’s office.

As chief of staff, Rainwater has been in charge of the policy advisors and strategists and supposedly enjoys a close day-to-day working relationship with Jindal—though probably not nearly as close as Timmy Teepell through whom Jindal has funneled nearly $3 million from his campaign ($1.27 million), and his non-profit organizations Believe in Louisiana ($1.22 million) and America Next. (No payments have been listed for America Next, Jindal apparently having learned his lesson when he listed contributions and payments to Believe in Louisiana.)

It’s difficult to believe that Rainwater, in overseeing Jindal’s advisors and strategists, would have been unwise enough to advise his boss to go off the way he did at the National Governor’s Conference on Monday. He is far too intelligent for such foolishness.

Even the Baton Rouge Advocate saw Jindal for what he really is—a spoiled brat who, if he can’t have his way, pouts or throws a tantrum—as depicted in one of the best editorial cartoons we’ve seen in a long time:

http://theadvocate.com/multimedia/walthandelsman/8477684-123/walt-handelsman-for-feb-26

That was plain idiotic and inappropriate and in the world of political faux pas, ranks right up there with his college exorcism and his Republican response to President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union address.

The suggestion of a tactic to make Jindal look that silly in front of a national television audience could only have come from someone like Teepell. Unless, of course, Jindal simply ad-libbed it which is certainly not out of the question, given his propensity of letting his alligator mouth overload his jaybird backside.

But back to the resignations of Greenstein, Phillips and Rainwater.

Greenstein announced his resignation on Mar. 29, 2013 immediately after word of a federal investigation into the CNSI contract was announced. Even then, for reasons no one has yet explained, he was allowed to remain until May. At about the same time as Greenstein’s resignation announcement was made, it was learned that a federal grand jury in Baton Rouge had subpoenaed all records dealing with the CNSI contract from the Division of Administration (DOA) as early as January of 2013.

That would mean that Jindal had to know about the investigation as much as three months before Greenstein’s resignation but said nothing about the probe and only cancelled the CNSI contract after the Baton Rouge Advocate broke the story of the four-page subpoena.

And now, only days—and in one case, only hours—before the opening of the 2014 legislative session, two other prominent figures in the CNSI story will be gone, out of reach of any curious legislative committee which might wish to question them about their knowledge of events surrounding the awarding of the contract.

Legislative committees and subcommittees have the authority under legislative rule to conduct studies, administer oaths to witnesses and to seek subpoenas and punishment for contempt although subpoenas require the approval of the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate upon the request of the committee chairman or by a majority of the standing committee members.

Louisiana Revised Statute 24:4 through 24:6 provides that a person is guilty of contempt of the legislature “if he willfully fails after subpoena to appear or produce materials.” Initiation of prosecution for criminal contempt is by certification to the district in the proper venue, in this case East Baton Rouge Parish.

The legislative subpoena and contempt provisions have been upheld in a number of court cases, most notably a 1972 case involving a state legislator who claimed to have tape recordings of an attempt to bribe him and a 1979 case against then-Insurance Commissioner Sherman Bernard and his deputy commissioner.

The two men, who appeared subject to subpoenas, interrupted committee hearings on insurance regulations and left the meeting room despite warning that their actions subjected them to being held in contempt. The two were subsequently held in contempt and fined $500 each.

 

Read Full Post »

Two months ago, when the Federal Communications Commission allotted $8 million to expand broadband Internet access in rural Louisiana areas, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu was quick to praise, perhaps a bit prematurely, the “investment” while Gov. Bobby Jindal remained uncharacteristically silent.

Despite Landrieu’s laudatory claim that the funds would “upgrade the digital infrastructure in rural communities,” the $8 million represented only 10 percent of an $80 million grant for Louisiana that was rescinded in October of 2011 because of Jindal’s aversion to what then Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater deemed a “top-down, government-heavy approach that would compete with and undermine, rather than partner with the private sector…”

What Rainwater—and through him, his boss, Jindal—did not acknowledge is that the Jindal administration’s obsession with protecting the private sector at the expense of broadband Internet service to customers in the rural areas of the central and northeastern parts of the state was part of the 12-year-old official position staked out by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in August of 2002. http://alecexposed.org/w/images/6/6f/9A15-Municipal_Telecommunications_Private_Industry_Safeguards_Act_Exposed.pdf

Also ignored by the Jindal administration—and ALEC—is that broadband service in the U.S. is woefully inadequate when compared with countries like South Korea, Japan and even Portugal and Italy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/competition-and-the-internet/

And it’s even worse in the country’s rural areas. http://deltafarmpress.com/blog/broadband-service-rural-areas-promise-still-exceeds-reality

No doubt you’ve seen those cute AT&T commercials featuring the man sitting at a table with children. He asks a question and gets feedback from the kids and the commercial ends with, “It’s not complicated.”

Indeed it is not. In 2008, Jindal’s very first year as governor, he signed SB-807 into law as Act 433 over the objections of the Louisiana Municipal and State Police Jury associations. The bill, the Consumer Choice for Television Act, was authored by then-Sen. Ann Duplessis (D-New Orleans). It passed the Senate by a 34-1 vote with only Dale Erdy (R-Livingston) voting no. Absent and not voting were Sens. Robert Adley (R-Benton), Jody Amedee (R-Gonzales) and Sheri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville).

AT&T, which contributed $10,000 to Jindal’s campaign since 2007, supported the bill. AT&T also contributed $250,000 to the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.

It’s not complicated.

It also passed overwhelmingly in the House by a 94-9 vote. The only members casting no-votes were Reps. James Armes (D-Leesville), Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport), Greg Cromer (R-Slidell), Jean Doerge (D-Minden), Ricky Hardy (D-Lafayette), Lowell Hazel (R-Pineville), Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Sam Jones (D-Franklin), and Chris Roy (D-Alexandria). Rep. James Morris (R-Oil City) was absent and did not vote.

The only ALEC member to go against the official doctrine was Carmody. He attended ALEC’s 2010 annual meeting in San Diego at which the organization’s Telecommunications & Information Technology Task Force passed an official resolution in potential opposition to private telephone and cable companies by public bodies such as city councils and parish governments. https://louisianavoice.com/2012/05/09/could-loss-of-that-80-6-million-broadband-internet-federal-grant-last-fall-have-been-deliberately-orchestrated-by-alec/

Other members of the Louisiana Legislature who attended that meeting included Reps. John LaBruzzo (R-Metairie), Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Tim Burns (R-Mandeville), State Chairman Joe Harrison (R-Gray), Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte) and Sen. Yvonne Dorsey (D-Baton Rouge).

Act 433 well may even have been written by AT&T, which is a member of ALEC and a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force. AT&T chipped in $50,000 to the ALEC cause in 2010 and was a member of the Louisiana Host Committee for ALEC’s 2012 annual meeting in New Orleans. Jindal was the recipient of ALEC’s Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award at that 2012 meeting. http://www.alec.org/hundreds-of-state-legislators/

It’s not complicated.

And lest one think that Louisiana’s loss of the $80 million broadband grant in 2011 was the exception, consider this:

  • Early this year, the Kansas Legislature undertook Campaign Stop Google Fiber—and any cities that may wish to invest in broadband network technologies. Included in legislation introduced in the legislature were stipulations that except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not themselves offer to provide or lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of allowing a private entity to offer, provide, carry or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/30/1273848/-Kansas-moves-to-Stop-Broadband-Internet-to-residents?detail=email
  • In February of 2011, the Minnesota Cable Communications Association (MCCA) initiated a public battle with National Public Broadband (NPB) by inundating Lake County with a flurry of public records request designed to slow NPB’s efforts to bring broadband Internet to rural areas of Lake County.

While MCCA correctly asserts that Lake County should act transparently, the barrage of requests submitted by the association makes its intent to protect its own financial interests over those of rural residents of the county is quite apparent. Its monopoly is, after all, being threatened and those cable services that are overpriced and which provide as little speed as possible are fighting back.

Certainly it’s only coincidental that AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, Comcast, Excel Communications, Fair Point Communications, Sprint Nextel, Verizon, and Cox Communications are members of ALEC. All but Excel and Fair Point serve on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations.

It’s not complicated.

So, given Jindal’s cozy relationship with ALEC and given ALEC’s opposition to public participation in expanding broadband Internet service to rural areas in competition with ALEC members, it’s perfectly understandable why Jindal eschewed that “top-down” management of the $80 million grant.

It’s not complicated.

And it is equally apparent that the monopolistic advantage enjoyed by private sector providers be protected at all cost—even at the cost of creating some 900 miles of cable over 21 rural parishes that would support several Louisiana universities with expanded optical fiber networking capacity.

It’s not complicated.

Top-down management apparently is good only when it originates from the fourth floor of the State Capitol. Just ask any legislator, former state employee, or board or commission member who has dared to contradict him on any issue.

It’s not complicated.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »