Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

The burning paradox that is Gov. Bobby Jindal comes down to this: for someone who so obviously loves and embraces the private sector, it’s curious that he has never earned his livelihood in it.

Yes, we know that he “worked” for four whole months for McKinsey & Co. in 1994 but that could hardly be considered as the private sector since the firm primarily serves as a training ground for future bureaucrats and elected public servants.

To paraphrase a 1981 line from actor Burt Reynolds at his Friars Club roast, he’d probably like to thank the little people for putting him into office—but he’d never associate with them.

Of course, should he ever decide to re-enter the private sector and if Jim Parsons should decide to leave the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory, Jindal could step right into the role of Dr. Sheldon Cooper and never miss a beat.

Sheldon Cooper, in case you are not a regular viewer (you can catch the show on CBS at 7 p.m. Thursdays or reruns on Tuesdays at 7 p.m. on TBS), is the glue that holds the popular show together. He is academically brilliant (as most would concede Jindal to be) but completely unable to relate to mere mortals (as all would have to agree is a persona that fits Jindal like a glove).

Sheldon is a fount of book knowledge, possessed of an eidetic memory and able to spout figures, dates and statistics with the comparative ease of reciting one’s ABCs but is unable—or unwilling—to perform the simple task of driving a car.

Jindal is a fount of book knowledge, possessed of an eidetic memory and able to spout figures, dates and statistics with the comparative ease….well you get the picture.

Sheldon is completely and totally devoid of human emotion, is unfeeling and unable to communicate in a normal conversation because he has no empathy for his fellow human being. Even in casual conversation, it is impossible for him to avoid insulting the intelligence of those around him, be they peers or subordinates.

Jindal is similarly lacking in those same qualities and likewise cannot speak without offending—be it civil service employees, department heads or fellow Republicans whom he now publicly refers to as being stupid.

Sheldon, when playing board games or video games with his friends, is prone to make up his own rules as he goes along—much to the consternation of Leonard, Raj and Howard, his three friends on the show.

Jindal also is not above tweaking the rules to his advantage as in his exempting the governor’s office from the state’s public records laws—much to the consternation of the media.

But most striking of all the similarities between the two: Sheldon is stubborn and steadfastly refuses to admit to the prospect that he could ever be wrong—about anything.

Jindal, too, is mulishly stubborn and just as steadfastly refuses to entertain the thought that he might be wrong about anything—a trait that goes at least as far back as middle school, according to a former teacher who described him as unwilling to accept correction even then.

But back to Jindal’s undying devotion to the private sector:

His is a strange relationship indeed.

Visit the home a professor, and you’re likely to find shelves upon shelves of books. Visit a hunter and you will find hunting rifles and mounted deer, elk and moose heads. Same with fishermen and the mounted bass that adorn their den walls.

Visit an aficionado of the private sector like, say, the governor of Louisiana and you’re likely to find…photos of smiling campaign contributors.

But you would never find him putting in a typical 8 to 5 day in a cubicle or toiling away in the workaday world like the rest of us. That is so far beneath him as to be comical to even consider.

No, he would never stoop to such a low level. That is for people who can be manipulated, used and even fired at will—by people like him.

Instead, Jindal chooses to reciprocate the private sector’s political campaign contribution largesse by selling off the state, piece by piece, agency by agency to his corporate benefactors while at the same time, selling out hard-working, dedicated state workers without so much as a second thought or a thank you.

The private sector is Jindal’s benefactor, not his employer. Accordingly, he must pander to the corporate suits like Rupert Murdoch, K12, Dell Computers, Marathon Oil, Wireless Generation, Altria, Hospital Corp. of America, Magellan Health Services, Meridian, CNSI, Information Management Consultants, Innovative Emergency Management, Anheuser-Busch, Corrections Corp. of America, AT&T, Koch Industries, the entire membership of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and most of his appointees to prestigious boards and commissions.

No, Bobby Jindal would never earn—has never earned—his living from the private sector.

But make no mistake about it: he owes his political existence to corporate America and the private sector.

And he believes with equal conviction that he owes nothing to state employees or the public sector.

Yes, he could step right in and fill Jim Parsons’ role as Sheldon and the difference would be negligible—except for the obvious cultural imbalance that would create.

Read Full Post »

Guest Column
By STEPHEN WINHAM

The long-awaited Jindal administration proposal to balance the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 budget was released yesterday (February 22). The most surprising thing about it was its almost complete lack of surprises. Once again, we were presented with a budget that uses one-time money, contingencies, and outright conjecture, along with increased college tuition, to create the illusion of a balanced budget that does little or no harm.

Perhaps the most surprising and indefensible part of the presentation was revealed in Melinda Deslatte’s AP wire story late yesterday. Deslatte reported that commissioner of administration Kristy Nichols defended the use of patchwork funding in the budget on the grounds that not doing so would result in “needless reductions to critical services.” Think long and hard about what that means.

The governor is happy to tout his refusal to increase state taxes. He is also happy to talk about his successes in reducing the size of government and refusal of additional federal support. He is very direct, if not necessarily consistent, when it comes to holding the line on these things. Although there is no second half to his current plan to eliminate income and franchise taxes, he assures us that, if he actually ever presents a proposal for the other side of the equation, it will be income neutral.

If Nichols’ testimony is to be taken at face value, we can only assume it is not possible to maintain critical services with our current level of recurring revenue. So far, the governor’s approach to reducing state government has been to gradually strangle it through continued submission of unrealistic budgets intended to give the impression everything is okay. The legislators adopt these proposals and congratulate themselves on another successful year.

In reality, everything is not okay. The governor knows it. Ms. Nichols knows it. The legislators interested enough to pay attention know it. As long as projected revenues from reliable, stable sources do not equal projected necessary expenditures, things will NEVER be okay. Governor Jindal has not submitted, nor has the legislature adopted, such a budget during his entire administration. This is proven by the mid-year cuts that are always necessary in adopted yearly budgets and the never-ending projections of deep holes for every future year.

Governor Jindal has been quoted repeatedly in the national press saying we all have to learn to live within our means. If he really believes this, why does he not present budgets that allow the state of Louisiana to do so? I think Ms. Nichols has made the answer quite clear – because we simply cannot live the way we want to within our present means. Presenting a truly balanced budget would result in an outcry from even the staunchest fiscal conservatives who would immediately begin to cry, “Why don’t you cut the fat, not the meat?” They would never accept there isn’t enough fat left to leave the meat alone.

A group of legislative “Fiscal Hawks” [a term coined by respected blogger C. B. Forgotston] has attempted to solve the perennial problem of unbalanced budgets by forcing the governor and the legislature to simply comply with the clear spirit of the state’s existing constitution and statutes as they apply to the budget.

Regardless of how complicated some might attempt to make these laws, their intent is plain common sense: we should do our best to project recurring revenues and adopt a budget that balances expenditures with them. If one-time revenues are used, they should only be used for clearly one-time expenses because doing otherwise automatically creates holes in future budgets. We shouldn’t budget on contingencies and conjecture because if the revenues fail to come in we will have significant trouble paying for or cutting the services they were supposed to fund.

Could anything be simpler or make more sense? If the governor and the legislature know we cannot live within our means why don’t they do something as simple as following the intent of existing law? The governor doesn’t propose budgets doing so because, like Ms. Nichols, he knows it is impossible without making unpopular cuts to essential services. Cutting taxes is popular. Cutting needed services, or raising taxes, is not.

The legislature doesn’t demand we live within our means for the same reason and also because of their collective belief that their constituents are only interested in the extent to which they bring home the bacon. Legislators believe not bringing home the bacon equals not getting re-elected. Although they already have a history of funding local services to the detriment of state programs in the past, we have now reached a critical stage.

If essential state services are cut at the same time purely local projects are funded, there might actually be a backlash for individual legislators. They might learn that their constituents benefit from the critical state services to which Ms. Nichols refers and actually care about the future of the state in which they live as much as their local neighborhoods.

Why can’t our state’s leaders just be honest about this and do the right thing? Understanding and dealing effectively with the budget dilemma requires a level of knowledge that can only be gained through fairly intimate involvement with, and knowledge of, the state’s budget and fiscal status. It is unreasonable to expect individual citizens to educate themselves at the detailed level necessary to make the right decisions about how to fix things even if they could. When we elect our governor and legislators, we do so with the reasonable expectation that they can and will take care of these things in our behalf.

It is certainly easy to understand why it is difficult to make hard cuts when cash is, or even may be, available to avoid them. But willfully allowing gross fiscal instability to continue indefinitely is a violation of the public trust. It serves no one well and doesn’t even allow the ability to isolate inefficiencies and make rational cuts in spending where they actually need to be made.

Only by facing reality can our state’s leaders make the necessary changes to move us forward. The administration has admitted the current gap cannot be closed by cuts alone. We should support those legislators and other elected officials who have the courage and conviction to make responsible decisions about our future even if they include additional taxes.

(Stephen Winham is the retired Louisiana State Budget Director)

Read Full Post »

The Louisiana Attorney General’s office has more than 80 legal opinions posted online that address the state’s open meetings and public records laws but don’t expect James “Buddy” Caldwell’s office to assist if you run up against resistance from a state agency like, oh say, the Louisiana Department of Education when seeking public records.

When LouisianaVoice recently encountered characteristic foot-dragging by State Education Superintendent in complying with our request for records pertaining to the department’s connections to Bill Gates’ Shared Learning Collaborative and Wireless Generation, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., we asked for a little help from the attorney general’s office.

That help was not forthcoming so we had to go to our fall back plan—our legal counsel, J. Arthur Smith who loves to take on the bureaucracy.

Instead, we received a telephone call from an assistant attorney general somewhere deep within the bowels of the Livingston Building at 1885 North Third Street in Baton Rouge.

The assistant AG was polite enough as she explained that it was not the function of the attorney general’s office to assist the public in obtaining public records from recalcitrant state agencies.

“But, but, you do help when people are attempting to obtain access to public meetings,” we sputtered in disbelief.

“Yes,” she said, “but we are not involved in disputes over public records.”

“Yet you will get involved in enforcing open meeting laws?”

“Yes, that’s different.”

“Wait. What? Different?”

“Yes.”

“But I thought the attorney general’s office would assist Louisiana citizens gain access to public records. Isn’t that the law?

“Where does it say that? We assist with public meetings.”

“You differentiate between public records and public meetings?”

“Yes. We will help with public meetings but we don’t involve ourselves with public records.”

“What’s the difference?”

“There is a difference.”

“What is it?”

“One issue is public meetings while the other is public records.”

Such is the surreal world one encounters when attempting to navigate the bureaucratic red tape of state government.

Yet, when one does a cursory internet search, it is easy enough to find opinion after opinion that addresses the very issue in question—like the following excerpts from Louisiana Attorney General opinions:

• The Department of Insurance must comply with a public records request made pursuant to LA. R.S. 44.1, et seq.

• Square footage obtained by the assessor in the performance of his or her constitutional and statutorily designated duties falls within the definition of a public record provided by the Public Records Act…

• The Slidell Memorial Hospital Foundation is a quasi-public body, subject to the open meetings laws, public records laws…

• Hand-held scanners may be used in the inspection of public records (we threw this one in because Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office refused us the opportunity several months back to use our hand-held scanner to inspect public records.)

• The nominating committee for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority is subject to the state’s “open meeting” and “public records” laws.

• When employees conduct official business through electronic communications, it becomes part of the public record which an individual may view…

• East Baton Rouge firefighters’ timesheets are a matter of public record…

And so on. You get our drift.

So, while no help can be anticipated from within the Louisiana Department of Justice (because, in the words of the late Richard Pryor, it’s “just US,” or in this case, “just them”), we will nevertheless plod along in our attempt to keep our readership informed—even to the point of employing the considerable persuasive legal talents of J. Arthur Smith who loves his job almost as much as we love ours.

Read Full Post »

“If you are available for dinner on Wednesday night, I would love to take you and discuss Broad (presumably the Broad Superintendents Academy—from which John White received his training/qualifications to run Louisiana’s public school system), school reform and other issues but no pressure on that. I know how precious an evening with family, time at the gym or just a little down time can be to recharge your batteries.”

—Sept. 9, 2011, email from Peter Gorman, senior vice president of News Corporation’s (Fox Network) new education division (Wireless Generation)—included in 119 pages of communications provided by the Department of Education pursuant to LouisianaVoice public records request.

“Dude—you are my recharger! Dinner it is, of course. Then let’s visit some schools Thursday. I’m really looking forward to it.”

—White’s email response to Gorman three minutes later. (Considerably faster, it should be noted, than the 28 days it took him to respond to LouisianaVoice’s requests for public records. Apparently we just don’t have what it takes to recharge him.)

Read Full Post »

As an illustration of the sheer arrogance of Louisiana Superintendent of Education John White, LouisianaVoice is providing an exchange of emails between us, White, and Louisiana Attorney General’s office and our attorney, J. Arthur Smith of Baton Rouge.

Folks, there is no better example of just how this administration, personified by the likes of White, his boss, Gov. Bobby Jindal, all but two members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and a few of Jindal’s choice cabinet members and certain legislators who shall for the time being remain nameless, has nothing but contempt for the voters of this state.

After all, where would Jindal rather be—in Baton Rouge or gallivanting all over the country in futile pursuit of the presidency? (Hint: it ain’t Baton Rouge.)

But now it seems that the national media is finally catching onto his act. An op-ed piece in Monday’s Washington Post said that Jindal’s rise in the ranks of the party illustrates that Republican reform is all cosmetic, so much rhetorical hogwash, smokes and mirrors. (But if you insist on latching onto Jindal’s sophomoric grandstanding as candy for your political sweet tooth, then knock yourself out.)

But back to Mr. White.

On January 22, we made the following public records request:

Any communication with or information relevant to Louisiana’s association or business conduct with any corporation or entity owned, led by or associated with Iwan Streichenberger;

Any communication or discussion relevant to the sharing of confidential student information for the purpose of developing and marketing “learning products” or for any other purpose;

All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

• Any communication with or information relevant to Louisiana’s association or business conduct with any corporation or entity owned, led by or associated with Iwan Streichenberger.

• Any communication or discussion relevant to the sharing of confidential student information for the purpose of developing and marketing “learning products” or for any other purpose.

• All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

• Written communications and contracts containing the phrase “shared Learning Collaborative” or “SLC.”

• Written communications containing the phrase “Wireless Generation.”

• Written communications containing the phrase “Iwan Streichenberger.”

• Written communications and contracts containing the phrase “Gates Foundation.”

Subsequent to that request, we made additional requests for:

• A list of the number of Teach for America teachers employed in each parish in the state.

• A list of complaints about the Louisiana Department of Education’s web page that White said prompted his decision to revamp the page to its current unnavigable mish mash of a web page that is about as user friendly as a sidesaddle on a Hampshire hog.

Of course the latter requests were ignored with all the same efficiency as the original requests. We know that John White personally received the requests because we get read receipts on all outgoing emails and we know the instant our emails are opened and read by the recipient.

And we save all our read receipts just in case the need should ever arise to have them—say in a civil lawsuit against the department.

At 3:41 p.m. on Tuesday (Feb. 19—28 days after our initial request), we sent the following email to our attorney (and copied White and Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell):

Art, this request is almost a month old. By law, state agencies (the Department of Education included) have three days in which to produce requested records or provide a date and time they will be available for inspection. The department has done nothing to provide these records other than send me a B.S. letter. I might overlook this if it were an isolated case, but this has been repeated time and again. I’m weary of playing their little games and I’m ready to file suit against John White and the Department of Education. I don’t want to file only to have them provide the records. I want to pursue this to seek my court costs, my attorney fees and any applicable fines. The Monroe News Star filed suit and White cratered and provided the records and nothing further was done. I don’t want that. I want to extract penalties for non-compliance or they’ll just repeat the procedure the next time I make a public records request.

Please file the necessary litigation immediately. I will pay the filing fee but I want the Department of Education to reimburse me.

My receipt indicated that White opened and read our email at precisely 3:44 p.m.

At 3:50 p.m. Tuesday, I received the following response from attorney Art Smith:

Gotcha. Will be glad to do.

Then, beginning at 6:20 p.m. and continuing through 6:43 p.m. we began receiving the first of what would ultimately be eight separate emails containing 119 pages of emails and other data from the Department of Education, some of which addressed our requests and others that did not.

Those responses that did not address our specific requests, however, were quite revealing. Because White made such a big production of the complaints he said he received about the old format of the department’s web page which led to the complete revamp of the page, we decided to call his bluff and ask for those complaints.

What we got instead of complaints about the old web page was a stream of complaints about the current format, including one writer who, in the email’s subject line wrote “YOUR NEWLY DESIGNED WEBSITE SUCKS,” and who then proceeded to chastise the department for the misspelling of “recieve.” (Yep, that’s the way your new DOE website spells receive.) “For crying out loud, USE YOUR SPELLCHECKER!” the Monroe critic wrote, adding, “Please correct this and make this site professional, not juvenile.”

Another wrote: “Many of your links lead to errors. Come on, man!”

“I am unable to locate information that I need to do my job. If we no longer have a website that is user friendly, what are we expected to do?” asked another.

Strangely, however, there were no complaints provided by White about the old web site even though he said the changes were made pursuant to “many complaints” about the old site.

Unimpressed with White’s last-minute attempt to head off unpleasant litigation, we followed up with another email at 9:37 p.m., again copying our attorney and Caldwell:

Mr. White, I am in receipt of eight separate emails from your office which purport to provide the information I requested (itemized below).

I can’t help but notice, however, that absent from the 117 pages you provided me under threat of litigation (which remains a valid option) were responses to requests 1, 2, and 6.

Please, without further delay, provide:

1) Any communications in any form or contracts relative to the “Shared Learning Collaborative” or SLC, a project of the Gates Foundation.

2) Information regarding Louisiana’s participation in Phase I of the above project.

6) All communication and/or contracts relevant to current or future association with Gates Foundation or its subsidiaries.

Because of the stalling tactics employed by you and the department, I shall not grant you the customary three days waiting period for this information inasmuch as it has already been 28 days since my initial request.

Litigation shall follow if this information is not provided by the close of business Wednesday, February 20, 2013.

White opened and read our latest email at 9:43 p.m.

We’ll keep you posted on developments and if anyone wishes copies of the emails that were provided, we will be happy to provide them electronically at no cost. Just contact us at: louisianavoice@cox.net

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »