Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

It was supposed to save the state some $40 million.

It cost more than 100 dedicated, efficient state employees their jobs.

It was supposed to be the best thing for the state even though studies commissioned by the Jindal administration said it was not a good deal.

It was such a great idea that the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) reduced its premium rates by 7 percent last July, six months before Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS) was scheduled to take over as third party administrator for OGB’s Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). And if it was going to save $40 million, why not reduce rates?

Well, for one reason, since BCBS took over in January, that alluring $500 million reserve fund that former OGB Director Tommy Teague had helped the agency build up is now said to be less than half that amount because expenditures (claims payments) have been outpacing revenues (premiums).

Except no one really knows because the administration has not provided the monthly reports.

Our open, accountable and transparent administration has not been forthcoming with financial information on the agency.

We can’t seem to see any early evidence of that $40 million savings.

When revenues don’t keep up, BCBS has been forced to dip into the reserve fund to pay claims. Obviously, when the fund is depleted, there is just one way out for BCBS: increase premiums.

That’s not exactly an unexpected development. In fact, a retired OGB employee said last October the rate reduction was a formula for fiscal irresponsibility. “The program operated at a small deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 (before the premium rate reduction), and is almost guaranteed a significant loss for Fiscal Year 2013 with the 7 percent reduction,” he said.

“The only reason that premiums could be reduced was the fact that the program had a significant surplus. For the current fiscal year, the program will be operating on its surplus for significant portion of the current year’s operating expenses…but this cannot go on forever,” he said.

“It is another example of using one-time funds to pay for continuing operations of the state. Once the reserve fund is exhausted, rates will need to be increased significantly to cover continuing operations.”

A member of the OGB board of directors requested copies of February’s monthly financial statement several weeks ago but has met only with frustration.

It can’t be that the report is not ready; word coming out of the agency is that not only is the February report complete, but the monthly report for March as well is complete.

Funny thing about this is that financials has always been provided to board members in the past. Suddenly things have changed.

With that in mind, we decided to submit our own request pursuant to the Louisiana public records laws.

In past requests for records from the Division of Administration, we have encountered delays and stonewalling that would test the patience of the Dalai Lama. DOA consistently offers the lame excuse that DOA personnel are “searching for records and reviewing them for exemptions and privileges.”

Anticipating the usual foot dragging, we submitted the following request:

From: Tom Aswell [mailto:azspeak@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:55 PM
To: doacommissioner@la.gov
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

• Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

• Please allow me the opportunity to review the monthly financial statements for the Office of Group Benefits for February and March of 2013.

• And please do not insult my intelligence by giving me your B.S. stock response (below) that you are “searching for records and reviewing them for exemptions and privileges.” You and I both know this is not privileged information and it certainly is not exempt. I will call on you Tuesday to review the documents. Any delays on your part will be met with prompt legal action.

Our most recent public records request to DOA was on March 10. Here is DOA’s response:

From: Joshua Melder [mailto:Joshua.Melder@la.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:53 PM
To: ‘azspeak@cox.net’
Cc: David Boggs (DOA)
Subject: RE: PRR BenefitFocus

Mr. Aswell,

We are still searching for records and reviewing them for exemptions and privileges. Once finished, we will contact you regarding delivery of the records. At that time, all non-exempt records will be made available to you. As of now, we will not be ready to produce records on Monday.

Regards,

Joshua Paul Melder
Attorney
Division of Administration
Office of General Counsel

Under Louisiana’s public records laws, public agencies, from town hall to the governor’s office, have three days in which to provide requested records or to respond in writing why the records are not available and when they will be available.

Here is that March 10 request for which we still are waiting for the records:

From: Tom Aswell [mailto:azspeak@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:19 PM
To: doacommissioner@la.gov
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully submit the following request:
Please provide me the opportunity to review the following information dating back to July 1, 2012:

• all written (email and traditional mail) correspondence between the Division of Administration (DOA) or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents and BenefitFocus or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents relative to any contract, Request for Proposal or any other contractual or business relationship between DOA and BenefitFocus or between the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) and BenefitFocus;

• all written (email and traditional mail) correspondence between the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents and BenefitFocus or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents relative to any contract, Request for Proposal or any other contractual or business relationship between OGB and BenefitFocus or between DOA and BenefitFocus;

• all written (email and traditional mail) correspondence between the Division of Administration (DOA) or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents and the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) or any of its representatives, spokespersons and/or agents relative to any contract, Request for Proposal or any other contractual or business relationship between DOA and BenefitFocus or between OGB and BenefitFocus.

We will keep you posted on how this silly, unnecessary drama plays out.

Read Full Post »

James Bowman is officially listed as the Chief Information Officer for the Louisiana Department of Education (DOE).

At $148,000 a year, he ostensibly presides over information technology for DOE.

He may even be the one responsible for redesigning the department’s web page to make it all but impossible to navigate. So much the better to keep the public uninformed about the machinations of DOE.

LouisianaVoice made its initial public information request pursuant to a curious Bowman email way back on March 10 but DOE did not get around to responding until Wednesday of this week. Our request read, in part:

• Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

• Emails sent by James Bowman the week of March 4-7, 2013 relative to directing staff not to attend BESE meeting.

The email was sent by Bowman on March 7 to Dave Elder, Carol Mosley and James McMahon of DOE and read:

• If you have staff that normally attends these meetings, pls advise that they should not attend tomorrow.

Inquiring minds, of course, want to know. Accordingly, we fired off an email to James Bowman, Chief Information Officer for the Louisiana Department of Education, in which we sought…well, information. Our email read thusly:

• What was the reasoning behind your email of March 7 to Dave Elder, Carol Mosley and James McMahon in which you directed them to advise their staff members that “they should not attend” the March 8 BESE meeting?

Bowman opened our email at 6:12 p.m. Wednesday but by 10 p.m. had not responded.

…So much for the information part of his title. Apparently that does not extend to the great unwashed.

For what it’s worth, we were unable to ascertain the exact job titles and salaries of Mosley or McMahon, but Elder was a former information technology director for DOE who has since retired.

As for that mysterious March 8 meeting, the agenda appeared rather routine:

• Academic Goals and Instructional Improvement;

• Administration and finance;

• Educator Effectiveness;

• Policy Information.

We can’t help but wonder if that BESE meeting may have held a clue to DOE’s agreement to provide sensitive student information to a huge computer data base controlled by Fox News honcho Rupert Murdoch—thus the directive to bar certain DOE staff members from attending the meeting.

What might have been buried in that “policy information” item? Or “academic goals and instructional improvement?”

Paranoid? Hell yes.

Read Full Post »

Call this the John White Special.

Let’s start with BESE’s March meeting at which the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) funding was discussed in a 26-page report which at one point appeared to veer off into reality television. The MFP was approved by BESE on March 8.

One of the criteria outlined at that meeting was the High Standards Weight.

“This weight is provided to recognize the cost of providing advanced coursework,” the BESE report said. “A 30 percent weight is provided for students in grades 8 through 11 that (sic) meet the certain criteria on exams. Students must meet the following criteria in order to be considered eligible (one would think that education administrators would know to use the word “who” instead of “that.”):

• Students in 8th grade that (there’s “that” again, instead of “who”) score excellent on Algebra I End of Course (EOC) tests;

• Students in 9th grade who (ah!) score excellent on Geometry EOC tests or score in a 3 or higher on an Advance Placement (AP) exam;

• Students in 10th grade who score 3 or higher on an AP exam;

• Students in 11th grade who score a 3 or higher on an AP exam or a 4+ on an International Bachelorette (IB) course.

Wait. What? Bachelorette? Yep, that’s what it said.

Like we said, reality television rules at BESE.

Maybe someone should have whispered to BESE/DOE that it should be International Baccalaureate before it’s approved for an official state document. And perhaps motivational speaker David “Lefty” Lefkowith could take time to show up for work one day and give proofreading lessons.

The biggest sticking point with White, insofar as LouisianaVoice is concerned, is the difficulty (make that impossibility) of squeezing what are clearly public records out of DOE.

R.S. 44:32(D) provides: “In any case in which a record is requested and a question is raised by the custodian of the record as to whether it is a public record, such custodian shall within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays, of the receipt of the request, in writing for such record, notify in writing the person making such request of his determination and the reasons therefor. Such written notification shall contain a reference to the basis under law which the custodian has determined exempts a record, or any part thereof, from inspection, copying, or reproduction.”

Three days.

If Jesus could escape from his tomb in three days, the Department of Education certainly should be able to lay its hands on and produce requested public records within that prescribed time.

Yet, LouisianaVoice has outstanding records requests dating back to March 6 without so much as an acknowledgement from DOE. We know Superintendent John White received the requests because our email alerts us whenever a recipient has opened one of our emails. There’s a reason for that.

Following are some of our outstanding public records requests:

Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:58 PM
To: john.white@la.gov
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

I would like a list of and a CV for the following:

All personnel who now work or who have worked in the Louisiana Department of Education since January of 2007 who worked for or otherwise were associated, affiliated with or employed by Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, and/or the Eli Broad Foundation;

In providing this information, please provide the following information:

Dates of employment for each;

Job title for each;

Salary for each.

(Nothing.)

Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 8:29 PM
To: john.white@la.gov
Cc: J Arthur Smith
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

emails sent by James Bowman the week of March 4-7, 2013 relative to directing staff not to attend BESE meeting.
Emails sent by Nick Bolt since Feb. 1, 2013 pertaining to Shared Learning Collaborative, including any and all communications relative to off-line discussions of SLC or Shared Learning Collaborative.

(Nothing.)

Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:04 AM
To: john.white@la.gov; troy.humphrey@la.gov
Cc: J Arthur Smith
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

Please allow me to review all contracts, purchase orders and authorizations to hire, executed and/or signed by Kunjan Narechania from January 1, 2012 through April 1, 2013. In providing these documents, please do not omit the signature page(s).

Please allow me to review all forms, including literacy, high school redesign and accountability authorized and/or signed by Kunjan Narechania from January 1, 2012 through April 1, 2013. Please include all signature page(s).

Please allow me to review all contracts, purchase orders and authorizations to hire executed and/or signed by Michael Rounds since his employment with DOE. Please include all signature page(s).

Please allow me to review all contracts, purchase orders and authorizations to hire executed and/or signed by David “Lefty” Lefkowith since his employment with DOE. Please include all signature page(s).

Please provide copies of all travel records/travel documents/travel reimbursements for David “Lefty” Lefkowith since his employment with DOE.

(Nothing.)

Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 9:00 p.m.
To: john.white@la.gov; troy.humphrey@la.gov
Cc: J Arthur Smith
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

Please provide signed time sheets verifying David Lefkowith’s presence in the DOE offices since his employment with DOE.

(Nothing yet, though the three-day deadline was not expired as of this writing.)

Even more serious is White’s dangerous little game of telling outright lies about the existence of public records and of playing favorites with the media.

The Independent of Lafayette attempted to obtain public records from DOE way back in April 2011 asking the department for correspondence DOE had received from the U.S. Department of Education relative to Louisiana’s No Child Left Behind waiver application.

After first denying the existence of the requested correspondence, DOE finally acquiesced on Friday, May 4, and told the paper the documents would be provided on Monday, May 7.

Instead, White, spoon fed the information, including extensive details and comments from White himself to a reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune so that his favored reporter could have the story first.

Mr. White should know that is not the way you try to manipulate the media in Louisiana or anywhere else. Any newspaper worth its salt will do what it must do to protect its interest from such shabby behavior—and the Independent did.

You do not play favorites and you certainly do not ignore legitimate requests from the media—most media. Some take umbrage at such efforts to control information that rightfully is the domain of the public.

It will end ugly.

LouisianaVoice has retained legal counsel and as this is being written is preparing to initiate legal action against White, DOE, BESE and its president, Chas Roemer. It is BESE, after all, that hired White and it is BESE to whom he answers so BESE is legally liable for the behavior of its upstart superintendent who apparently feels the laws to not apply to him.

But apply to him they do. It will cost us money, but in the end, we will be upheld in our efforts and when that happens, the court not only may assess legal fines against the department and BESE, but it can also order DOE and BESE to pay our legal fees and our court costs.

And then there’s the negative publicity that would go with yet another embarrassing court decision against DOE.

Strother Martin (the warden in Cool Hand Luke) notwithstanding, there is no failure to communicate here.

NOTE: (J Arthur Smith copied in several of our public records requests to White is our legal counsel.)

Read Full Post »

“The findings relating to RSD’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations should be addressed immediately by management.”

—Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera, in his management letter to Recovery School District (RSD) Superintendent Patrick Dobard in which Purpera noted that a state audit had found that RSD could not account for more than $2.7 million in movable property. It was the sixth consecutive year in which RSD was cited for lax property control and missing or stolen property.

Read Full Post »

At the risk of sounding a bit smug, regular readers may remember that we had serious misgivings about that $194 million CNSI contract with the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) from the outset.

And so, it turns out, does the FBI.

And Gov. Bobby Jindal, much like another governor of some 2,000 years ago, thinks by washing his hands, he can absolve himself of any blame in the entire matter.

Let’s review.

In early June of 2011, DHH Secretary-designate Bruce Greenstein appeared before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee for his confirmation hearing and things quickly went south as Greenstein and Undersecretary Jerry Phillips became involved in the old irresistible force-immovable object standoff over the identity of the winning contractor to replace a 23-year-old computer system that adjudicated health care claims and case providers.

The contract is scheduled to go into effect in 2014 but that could change now.

Greenstein and Phillips contended that because of a state statute which required the official awarding of the contract by the House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees, they were prohibited from divulging the name of the winning contractor.

Then-Sen. Rob Marionneaux (D-Livonia), who has since retired from the legislature because of term limits, told Greenstein, “One of the questions is about the company you used to work for (CNSI). Who is the company who is going to receive the contract?”

Greenstein and Phillips contended that because of a state statute which required the official awarding of the contract by the House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees, they were prohibited from divulging the name of the winning contractor.

Marionneaux argued that the statute “does not say you shall not divulge, just that shall not award the contract. We’re not here to award the contract; we just want to know who the contractor is. So, who is going to receive the contract?”

Greenstein again attempted to invoke the statute but Marionneaux interrupted him. “Are you telling me right now, today, that you’re refusing to tell this committee who’s going to receive that contract?”

“We believe that the law states that we should call on the (joint) committee and then make the announcement to that committee,” Greenstein said.

“I read the statute,” Marionneaux said. “Are you refusing to tell this committee who is going to be recommended by DHH to receive the award? Yes or no.”

“I’m not going to be able to say today,” Greenstein said.

“We’re sitting here trying to decide if you, the leader of DHH, are going to be confirmed and we have a headline in Monday’s paper that you want to keep a secret and a direct question is being asked and you refuse to answer.”

“I just don’t understand why this administration does this,” said Sen. Ed Murray (D-New Orleans). “You are, I suppose, just following directions.”

Sen. Jody Amedee (R-Gonzales) then laid the issue at the feet of Jindal when he 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.

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

Phillips tried to intervene, saying that once the contractor’s name is made public, “it’s the equivalent of an announcement.”

“Do you make the law?” Peterson asked.

“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).”

Greenstein eventual acquiesced and admitted that his former employer, CNSI, was the winner but he insisted that he had built a “firewall” between himself and the selection process and that he had no contact with anyone from CNSI during the selection.

As the committee wound down its questioning, Peterson said, “I hope the governor is listening because what has been happening is not in the best interest of the people nor is it consistent with his purported policy of transparency.

“This gives the appearance of your wanting to hide something, particularly since we now know the contractor is your former employer and you wanted to keep that from us.”

The subsequently learned, despite Greenstein’s assurances to the contrary, that Greenstein indeed did have some contact with his old employer and in fact, implemented changes in the request for bids that allowed CNSI to submit a proposal—a proposal that actually ranked third among four bidders on the technical merits of its proposal but which won the contract based on the lowest price.

The low bid prompted howls of protests from CNSI competitors who accused the Maryland firm of low-balling its bid in order to win the contract. There was no way the company could perform terms of the contract for the amount it bid, they said.

CNSI bid $184.9 million on the 10-year contract. ACS was second with a $238 million bid and Hewlett Packard ES came in at $394 million. A fourth bidder, Molina Medicaid Solutions did not score high enough on the technical front to warrant consideration.

It turns out that the claims that CNSI low-balled its bid may have had merit. Earlier this month, state officials held up a proposed $40 million change to the contract, which had already increased to $194 million. And now we learn that the FBI has launched an investigation into the manner in which the contract was awarded

But on Thursday, only hours after word that the FBI had served a four-page subpoena on DOA was made public, word came down from the fourth floor of the State Capitol that the CNSI contract was being cancelled.

Actually, the administration has known of this probe into the proposal and the CNSI contract for some time now. The subpoena was served on DOA and signed for by DOA counsel Lesia Batiste Warren on Jan. 7.

That means that our open, transparent and accountable administration has known of this probe for nearly three months and chose to say nothing until March 21 and then only after word leaked out about the investigation.

The subpoena called upon DOA to produce:

• All documents submitted by ACS State Healthcare, Client Network Services, HP Enterprise Services, and Molina Medicaid Solutions;

• All financial information (including but not limited to financial statements, income statements, balance sheets, and statements of profit and loss) submitted by ACS, Client Network Services, HP Enterprise Services and Molina, and

• Documents sufficient to show the date and time at which each response to the proposal was received by the state.

Perhaps Jindal, remembering stories about Earl Long shouting to Leander Perez at the height of legislative debate over desegregation, “Whatcha gonna do now, Leander? The feds have the A-bomb,” realized that he would not be able to invoke his beloved deliberative process exception with the FBI and so decided on Plan B: cancel the contract.

“Based on consultation with the Attorney General’s office, today I am terminating the state’s contract with CNSI, effective immediately, announced Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols. “The state will work with the current contractor, Molina Medicaid Solutions, to provide services during this transition and until a new RFP (request for proposal), overseen by the Division of Administration, is completed,” she said.

“We have zero tolerance for wrongdoing, and we will continue to cooperate fully with any investigation,” she added.

Yeah, that ought to do it. Cancel the contract and everything will be okay.

The only course of action to decide on now is who to throw under the bus—Greenstein or Phillips

But it might be wise to heed the advice of one sage political observer who says to ignore what the administration says and play closer attention to what was not said.

The fact that the contract was cancelled so quickly tells us two things:

• The administration knew this was coming because you can’t simply cancel a contract of this magnitude on the spur of the moment;

• The administration is scared.

“I don’t think this is over,” our unpaid consultant said.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »