Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

Better than Trump: disagree with Jindal? You’re fired!

Posted in Governor's Office, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Teague, Transparency on April 15, 2011| 28 Comments »

Chalk up another victim to the Petulance of Piyush. This time it’s Office of Group Benefits (OGB) CEO Tommy Teague, the man who refused to throw his employees under the bus to satisfy the governor’s gargantuan ego.

Teague, asked to resign or be fired late Friday by Deputy Commissioner of Administration Mark Brady, refused to step down voluntarily and was terminated. Teague told the Baton Rouge Advocate that Brady gave no reason for his action. The locks to Teague’s office door were changed and his computer seized after he left OGB Friday.

He was six months away from qualifying for retirement.

The latest development is clear evidence of the high stakes in this game. There is an OGB surplus of $500 million on the table and Jindal wants it to help plug a hole in his budget.

What will he do next year, install parking meters in all the state employee parking garages?

Only 18 months ago, Teague’s wife, Melody Teague, a Department of Social Services contract grants reviewer, was canned one day after she had the temerity to publicly criticize the Piyush Push (yeah, we like that phrase) to privatize everything that moves in state government.

Her remarks were made during an Oct. 1, 2009, state Commission for Streamlining Government forum in Jefferson Parish.

Tommy Teague was shown the door after word leaked out that Brady apparently brought in the international investment banking firm of Goldman Sachs last fall to help plan the privatization of OGB and that Brady had ties to Goldman Sachs from a previous position as executive director of the Arab Banking Association of North America.

OGB, or perhaps more accurately, the Division of Administration, enlisted the aid of Goldman Sachs to write specifications for a request for proposals (RFP) for a firm to conduct financial assessment of OGB and to market the agency to a private buyer that would keep as much as $350 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus as part of the purchase of assets that would also include premiums to be paid by state employees for health coverage.

When proposals were opened a few weeks ago, voila! Goldman Sachs was the only bidder. In most circles, public and private, that would be considered a glaring conflict of interests. A Senate report released Thursday roundly criticized Goldman Sachs for helping to bring about the financial crisis of 2008. Now the firm stands to net $6 million for doing a financial assessment of OGB and for trying to find a buyer. The $6 million will be paid whether or not Goldman Sachs is successful in its efforts.

Firing people seems to be Jindal’s favorite way of dealing with a problem. Some others leave to cash in on their connections established and some others leave voluntarily, out of disgust.

Like Richard Sherburne, who resigned as State Ethics Administrator after Jindal gutted the Ethics Board’s adjudicatory authority and gave it to administrative law judges. That couldn’t have been because Jindal had been fined by the State Ethics Board for campaign violations.

Then, there was Jim Champagne, executive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety commission for 12 years, whose passion was driver safety. Champagne made the fatal mistake of disagreeing with Jindal’s decision to repeal the state’s motorcycle helmet law and poof! He was gone.

Jindal tried to get Tammie McDaniel to resign her seat on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education because she refused to go along with some of his education reform programs. She refused at first but finally stepped down.

Ann Williamson “resigned” her position at the Department of Social Services after complications were experienced with assistance programs following Hurricane Gustav.

William Ankner was Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Developments but after a $60 million highway construction contract was awarded to the high bidder, he was shown the door.

Most recently, Roland Toups of Baton Rouge, the longest-serving member of the Louisiana Board of Regents, resigned under not-so-subtle pressure from Jindal so that he could appoint vascular surgeon Dr. Albert Sam, II, an African-American to the board.

Toups showed a lot of class in stepping down, saying he felt a “responsibility.” Jindal denied the move had anything to do with a lawsuit filed by students at Southern University over the all-white makeup of the Regents. Yeah, right.

Ironically enough, in Sam’s first vote as a member of the board, he voted against Jindal’s proposal to merge the University of New Orleans and Southern University-New Orleans. So much for strategy.

So now, apparently it was Tommy Teague’s turn.

Terague’s wife, by the way, was reinstated after she filed legal action against the state. Tommy Teague might not be so lucky. He was an unclassified employee who served at the pleasure of the Division of Administration.

State Sen. Butch Gautreaux (D-Morgan City), a member of the OGB board of directors, is an outspoken opponent of the sale of the agency, even going so far as to write a letter to his fellow legislators to ask their support in opposing the sale. “Help me let everyone know that we are not afraid and we are not for sale,” he wrote.

He attributed Jindal’s rise to power to what he called “predatory politics.” He said Jindal’s mindset appears to be “Let’s take out the weakest in the herd, employees who are afraid of losing their jobs. The general public loves it.”

Indeed, Jindal has consistently shown that he holds state employees in utter disdain by selling off their jobs, raising the employee contributions to retirement and health benefit programs while denying civil service workers merit raises for the second year in a row.

Not satisfied with that, he displayed the height of arrogance and contempt on Thursday by issuing a “State Employee Appreciation Day” proclamation.

Employees could almost see the smirk on this face as he signed it.

Read Full Post »

Was that Goldman Sachs behind the grassy knoll?

Posted in Governor's Office, Health Care, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Teague, Transparency on April 13, 2011| 6 Comments »

The involvement of Goldman Sachs in the proposed privatization of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) is such that even conspiracy theory skeptics might want to take a second look.

Details that are slowly becoming known only serve to raise more questions than they answer and at the same time, feed the anxieties of those who distrust government at all levels.

Capitol News Service has learned that Goldman Sachs has been active in the planned privatization of OGB for much longer than was first thought—as far back as last October or November.

Reports first surfaced a few weeks ago that the Wall Street banking firm, a major player in international financial circles, helped write the specifications for a request for proposals (RFP) from reputable financial institutions to conduct a financial assessment of OGB and to help find a buyer for the agency that currently carries a surplus of more than $500 million.

When it came time to open the proposals for the project, Goldman Sachs was the only bidder and stood to rake in a $6 million fee for its services, whether it was successful in finding a buyer or not.

Now it has been learned that Deputy Commissioner of Administration Mark Brady floated the idea of selling OGB to OGB CEO Tommy Teague in a meeting between Brady, Teague, and four representatives of Goldman Sachs last fall. Brady was reported to have asked Teague if he was on board with the proposal. If not, he was told, Brady “would find someone” who was. Teague is an unclassified employee appointed by the Commissioner of Administration and Brady is his supervisor.

Neither Teague nor Brady returned telephone calls from CNS. To date, neither man has commented on Goldman Sachs’s involvement.

As a result of that meeting, the fiscal staff at OGB was directed to compile financial data with the main thrust being a breakdown of the financial statements of the agency into separate components from OGB preferred provider organization (PPO), exclusive provider organization ( EPO), and health maintenance organization ( HMO), represented by United Health Care, Vantage Health Plan, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Speculation among key OGB employees is that the data was turned over to Goldman or Chaffe and Associates of New Orleans.

Chaffe was given an under-the-radar $49,999.99 contract to crunch some OGB numbers for Jindal in time for him to include the OGB proposal in his proposed budget for the coming year. The budget proposal was presented on March 11, but no mention was made of OGB, leading to speculation that Chaffe’s draft report did not reflect numbers favorable to implementation of Jindal’s plan to sell OGB. The amount of Chaff’s contract was exactly one cent below the amount that would have required approval of the Office of Contractual Review.

When sent requests for copies of the report under the state’s public records act, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater twice denied that any such report exists. But those knowledgeable about events at OGB said there was a report and that Teague was given express orders not to release it to state auditors who also have requested a copy.

Under terms of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s proposal to sell OGB, the buyer would receive between $300 million and $350 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus with the remainder being used to help plug a gaping $1.6 billion deficit for the upcoming fiscal year.

The main hurdle to the implementation of that plan is a state law, R.S. 42:854.5(A), which says, in part, “Any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes” (emphasis added).

The involvement of Brady in the discussions is particularly interesting. Brady was brought into the Division of Administration (DOA) about two years ago. Prior to moving to Baton Rouge from New Hampshire, Brady served as Executive Director of the Arab Bankers Association of North America (ABANA).

Though no direct link between Brady and Goldman Sachs was immediately evident, representatives of Goldman Sachs were featured speakers at ABANA functions and Goldman Sachs was listed as an “institutional member” in ABANA’S 2005 annual report.

One of the speakers was David M. Leuschen, who was a partner and managing director at Goldman Sachs and who was instrumental in advising Mobil Oil on its $81 billion merger with Exxon before moving on to found the Carlyle Group, an international investment firm, and Riverstone Holdings. Both companies are also listed as institutional members in the ABANA annual report.

It was through Carlyle that Leuschen became actively involved in technology investments in the Middle East.

Carlyle and Riverstone partnered in using political connections to solicit the business of public retirement funds from all over the country. Moreover, Leuschen, who owns Switchback Ranch, a 200,000-acre spread in Montana, serves on the board of the Buffalo Bill Museum in nearby Cody, Wyoming. Other members of the board include former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Montana Sen. Alan Simpson, and Ray Hunt of the Texas Hunt Oil family.

State funds that invested in Carlyle included $40 million from the New Mexico State Investment Council, $100 million from the Connecticut State Pension Fund, and $100 million from the Texas teachers’ pension fund (whose board was appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush), and hundreds of millions more from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Retirement System of the State of Illinois, the Delaware Public Employees Retirement System, the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, and Ohio State University. Carlyle and Riverstone also retained a third firm tied to them and that firm, Searle & Co., received $530 million in investment commitments from the New York State Pension Fund.

The latter transaction resulted in an extensive investigation of both Carlyle and Riverstone by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. His prosecution resulted in Leuschen and his two firms having to repay the New York fund $50 million—$30 million by Riverstone and $20 million by Carlyle.

Additionally, the Nevada Public Employees Retirement system only last month fired Goldman Sachs and Quantitative Management Associates as its portfolio managers.

Goldman Sachs managed $600 million and Quantitative Management handled $500 million of the system’s total holdings of $2.5 billion.

Among those who have worked in the employ of the Carlyle Group are former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker, former British Prime Minister John Major, a member of the Bid Laden family of Saudi Arabia, former BP chief executive John Browne, and former Louisiana Senator John Breaux, now a Washington, D.C. lobbyist.

Lest OGB employees consider themselves unique, the move to privatize government agencies is by no means limited to Louisiana. Texas billionaire Thomas Hicks, who contributed $25,000 to George W. Bush’s gubernatorial campaign, was appointed to the University of Texas Board of Regents following Bush’s election.

Hicks then pushed for the privatization of the university’s assets and eventually created the University of Texas Investment Management Co., so that its dealings would be concealed from public scrutiny. Only a massive public outcry forced the management company to reopen its holdings.

Typically, a high-ranking government official directs a substantial amount of government business to the Carlyle group with the taxpayer often being the source of the money. Then, upon leaving public service, the high-ranking official joins the Carlyle group and cashes in.

With Goldman Sachs searching for a buyer, the question was whether the buyer might ultimately be Carlyle and would any “high-ranking” Louisiana officials subsequently leave state government to join Carlyle?

There are reports that at least two groups are considering class action lawsuits to halt the proposed sale of OGB.

Reports also surfaced last week that Goldman Sachs was having second thoughts about the $6 million contract to find a buyer. Representatives of the banking firm, in a conference call on April 11, demanded that the state indemnify the firm from any legal liability stemming from lawsuits. When Division of Administration (DOA) officials balked at that demand, the Goldman Sachs representatives said they would have to talk to their legal department and get back with state officials. They had not called back by the end of last week.

Read Full Post »

State Judges send Jindal resolution opposing sale of OGB

Posted in OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Public Records, Transparency on April 9, 2011| 2 Comments »

Opponents of the proposed privatization of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) got two major boosts last week, first when Wall Street international banking firm Goldman-Sachs appeared to be having second thoughts about its involvement and later when state judges weighed in to oppose the sale.

Both developments could pose major jolts to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s efforts to place OGB on the auction block.

As opposition to the sale of the agency, along with its $500 million accrued surplus grows, Jindal is encountering ever-mounting opposition to his plan. Virgil Orr, retired vice president at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston and a former state representative, has fired off a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell seeking legal guidance in fighting the sale.

Judges from across the state attended a two-day conference at the Hilton Lafayette and Towers in Lafayette on Thursday and Friday of last week and the judges, who are themselves members of Group Benefits, adopted a formal resolution that was forwarded to Jindal asking him to reconsider the sale.

Earlier in the week, Goldman-Sachs appeared to balk at accepting a $6 million contract to assess the value of OGB and to find a buyer for the agency after having helped to write the specifications for a request for proposals (RFP) and subsequently becoming the only bidder on the RFP.

Formal opposition, of course, is no guarantee of success with the Jindal administration. In 2008, both the Louisiana Municipal Association and the Louisiana Police Jury Association objected to Jindal’s signing Act 433 into law. The Consumer Choice for Television Act allowed AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises from city councils, parish councils or police juries. In effect, the act removed from local and parish governmental entities their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles.

Despite the fervent opposition from the municipal and parish associations, Jindal signed the act into law.

AT&T subsequently contributed $250,000 to Jindal’s wife’s charitable foundation, the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.

Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Kitty Kimball reportedly was in attendance at the judges’ Lafayette conference.

Members of the judges association’s Legislative Committee include Chairman Bob Morrison of the 21st Judicial District Court (Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena), Raymond Childress of the 22nd JDC (St. Tammany and Washington), Rosemary Ledet of the Orleans Civil District Court, Mary Becnec of the 40th JDC (St. John the Baptist), Ford Stinson, Jr. of the 26th JDC (Bossier and Webster), Jay McCallum of the 3rd JDC (Lincoln and Union), Toni Higginbotham of the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court, Scott Crichton of the 1st JDC (Caddo), Harry Randow of the 9th JDC (Rapides), and Mike Canaday of the 14th JDC (Calcasieu).

The wording of the resolution was not immediately available but Capitol News Service has submitted a formal public records request of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and Jindal’s office for a copy of the resolution and any letter that may have accompanied it to the governor’s office.

A similar request was made for any reports generated by Chaffe and Associates of New Orleans after it was awarded a contract for $49,999.99 (one penny less than the amount that would require approval of the Office of Contractual Review) to provide preliminary figures about OGB assets in time for Jindal to submit his proposed 2011-2012 budget.

Despite reports that Chaffe submitted a report draft, Rainwater’s office has twice denied that any such documents have been received by his office. One report also said that the legislative auditor’s office had also been denied access to the Chaffe report if it does, in fact, exist.

Goldman-Sachs, after news stories about its involvement in both writing the specifications for the RFP and then submitting the only proposal, reportedly told the Division of Administration (DOA) during a conference call last Monday that it would opt out of the $6 million contract unless the state agreed to indemnify the banking giant from liability from any litigation arising from the proposed sale of the agency.

Such an agreement would expose OGB to legal liability and require the state on the one hand to spend money to defend an agency that, on the other hand, the state is trying to dismantle.

When told the state would not agree to those terms, representatives of Goldman-Sachs said they would have to check with their legal department and get back to DOA officials.

As of Friday, Goldman-Sachs had not called state officials back.

There are reports circulating around the state that at least two groups, possibly three, are considering filing class action lawsuits against Jindal, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, the Legislature, and OGB to stop the planned sale. One of those is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Orr, contacted in Ruston, said he had sent a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to explore legal options open to members of Group Benefits.

“I asked the attorney general to advise us on three questions:

“What is the legality of Jindal’s proposal to sell Group Benefits? What course of action is open to us if Jindal’s proposal is not legal? And what should we do if it is legal?”

R.S. 42:854.5(A) says, in part, “any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes.” (emphasis added.)

Under Jindal’s plan, the state would take $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus to help plug the gaping $1.6 billion state budget deficit with the purchaser of the agency getting the remainder.

Orr said he was concerned with the direction Jindal is taking the state in his efforts to privatize state prisons and OGB. The Office of Risk Management was privatized last July at a contract cost of $68 million to the state but F.A. Richard and Associates, the firm that submitted the winning bid and was awarded the contract, has already requested a $7 million contract amendment.

Read Full Post »

Nero Jindal fiddles at San Antonio fundraiser even as Legislature crashes and burns, state employees smolder

Posted in BESE, Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Prison, Privatization, Transparency on April 8, 2011| 4 Comments »

Events in Baton Rouge appear to be spinning out of control these days with legislative efforts at mandated reapportionment appearing to crater coupled with growing discontent among state employees over the proposed privatization of the Office of Group Benefits and three state prisons.

Probably the most appropriate metaphor would be that Emperor Nero (Gov. Bobby Jindal) fiddled (attended yet another out-of-state fundraiser) while Rome (the Legislature) burned.

On Thursday, both houses of the Louisiana Legislature abruptly and simultaneously said to heck with it and adjourned until Monday as the deadline loomed for reapportioning the House, Senate, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Public Service Commission, and redrawing the state’s congressional districts from seven to six to accommodate the state’s loss of population from 2000 to 2010.

When they return, they will have only three days to agree on all of those issues, a virtual impossibility in the eyes of some observers. They’ve been in special session, after all, since March 20 and now must try to accomplish in three days what they haven’t been able to do in the past three weeks.

In all probability a second special session will have to be wedged in between Wednesday’s adjournment and the April 25 start of the 2011 regular session. If that occurs, the first order of business should be that the 39 Senators and the 105 House members pass by unanimous vote a resolution that will not accept one penny of per diem. Legislators currently are paid $159 per day for each day they are in Baton Rouge. That’s over and above their regular salary, so a second special session of, say 10 days would cost the state almost $230,000 for doing what it should accomplish in the current special session.

So at a time when a steady hand was desperately needed to steer the ship, when some semblance of leadership and guidance was sorely needed, where was Gov. Bobby Jindal?

Why in San Antonio trying to raise still more funds to get him re-elected to the job he wants, of course.

Jindal, who already has upwards of $12 million in his campaign coffers and no opposition in sight, appears focused on just two things (we know, the governor usually begins his responses to questions with, “Three things….): his re-election and his obsession with privatizing everything he possibly can in state government.

Edwin Edwards, his legal shenanigans notwithstanding, and despite his weakness for women and gambling, would never have let what happened on Thursday occur on his watch. You can take that to the bank.

Smooth Eddie would have taken Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) and Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan) to the woodshed that is the fourth floor of the Capitol and given them an attitude adjustment. He would have said something like, “If you want to remain Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, you better get back down to chambers and get this thing resolved.”

And Tucker and Chaisson would have left the governor’s office with their tails between their legs and would have proceeded to follow the governor’s directions to the letter. That’s real leadership.

And therein lies the rub, as ol’ Billy Wayne Shakespeare once said. There was, is no governor around who commanded that kind of respect. Heck, the governor wasn’t even around, respect or no respect. And the legislature wasn’t about to take its marching orders from Timmy Teepell.

The only thing one can find in abundance on the fourth floor is the abyss that is a gaping leadership void. The current situation makes the title of Jindal’s book, Leadership and Crisis, nothing more than a cruel, very unfunny joke.

On another front, Jindal appears oblivious to growing discontent among employees of three prisons, the Office of Group Benefits (OGB), and state retirees who have brought about a resurgence of the Gray Panthers of a few decades ago.

Reports surfaced Friday that at least two and perhaps three separate groups are considering class action lawsuits against Jindal, OGB, and the Legislature to halt the proposed sale of OGB. One of those groups is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Jindal is plunging ahead with his plans to privatize the two agencies despite the appearance at the House Appropriations Committee Thursday of more than 100 corrections employees from Avoyelles Parish, a former congressman, and a former commissioner of administration during the Edwards administration, all of whom were vehemently opposed to the sale of state prisons in Allen, Winn, and Avoyelles parishes.

As regards OGB, a letter has started making its rounds among state employees and retirees.

It is not known who authored the letter but whoever wrote it urges others to send copies to legislators to remind them that R.S. 42:854.5(A) says quite clearly that revenue under control of OGB “shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes,” precisely the intent of Gov. Jindal.

Under his plan, if OGB is sold, the state would get $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus with the purchaser getting the balance.

The trick for Jindal would be to remove the $500 million surplus from OGB’s control. That would require cunning and guile, diabolical characteristics that should never be confused with leadership.

Here is the full text of that letter:

As a state retiree I would like to make it known in the strongest possible language my dissatisfaction with Governor Jindal’s plan to privatize the Office of Group Benefits. This includes any plan he has to “outsource” the PPO. Either of those actions will cost the state much more money than it now pays, not to mention the horrible financial hit it would mean for state retirees.

It is an open secret that he hopes to simply GIVE most of OGB’s $500 million surplus to whichever of his rich cronies end up buying OGB. Not all of it, of course. He hopes to confiscate a portion of the $500 million for budgetary reasons. This money is, by law*, for OGB’s use in properly administering the plan. GIVING away money obtained from the state’s employees and taxpayers is reprehensible and is entirely politically motivated. It is only in a love-the-rich and hate-the-poor universe that such a thing could be considered moral.

The sale of OGB, resulting in a one-time monetary benefit, or the outsourcing of the PPO, will not save the state one penny. Either action would, in fact, end up costing the state more money. The reason for this lies in the fact that OGB’s administrative costs (which includes all aspects of running the agency, including premium increases) is an incredibly low 4% (compare this to the for-profit industry average). If another company, of necessity a for-profit company, takes over the operation of the PPO, this cost will rise by a minimum of 10%. This translates into higher premiums for both the state (since it is the state’s responsibility to contribute up to 75% of the cost of the premiums for state retirees) and the state’s retirees. Would someone please tell me HOW increasing premiums will save either the state or its retirees any money? Whatever money is made (the figure bandied about is $125 million) by a one-time sale of OGB will quickly be lost in increased state expenditures. If the PPO is outsourced, the increase in premiums for the replacement plan will land the state in even more dire financial straits.

*Louisiana State Law La. R.S. 42:854.5(A)
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes or any other purpose inconsistent with the purposes of or the proper administration of the Office of Group Benefits. – Acts 2001, No. 1178,§ 5, eff. June 29, 2001.

Read Full Post »

State employees get another slap in the face from administration in the form of Personnel Policy #95

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Transparency on April 5, 2011| 5 Comments »

There exists something of a double standard in Louisiana state government between elected officials and civil service employees, or as some would describe it, between the haves and the have nots.

Members of the Louisiana Legislature may reinstate their currently suspended annual, automatic pay raises at their pleasure. Likewise, unclassified employees (appointees) may be given annual pay raises at the pleasure of the administration but for the second straight year state classified (civil service) employees have their pay frozen—at the behest of the legislature and Gov. Jindal.

Legislators may accept meals from lobbyists but classified employees are strictly prohibited from accepting so much as a cupcake from a vendor for fear that the low-level bureaucrat can do favors for the vendor that a legislative committee chairman obviously is unable to do. One civil service employee was fined $250 by the State Ethics Board a few years ago because a vendor sent her a Christmas ham.

The governor of the State of Louisiana is free to write a book about his career and to hawk it on national television but if an employee of the Division of Administration (DOA) wishes to write a book, he must obtain prior approval from his section head. Those who embrace the First Amendment might suggest that this is a form of prior censorship.

Legislators who happen to be attorneys can—and do—sue the state and no one in any official capacity sees it as a conflict of interest.

The playing field, which has never been level, is poised to become even more tilted in favor of those in power and to the detriment of those who work in the trenches on a day to day basis to keep the state running efficiently.

State classified employees—the same employees whose pay has been frozen for two years—cannot engage in outside employment activities to earn extra income unless the work is approved in advance by that same section head for fear that an employee may be engaging in a conflict of interest.

DOA employees either have already received or will be receiving a copy of DOA Policy No. 95 (not to be confused with Area 51 in Nevada, though the policy may appear to some to have been inspired by alien mind control). The new policy details limitations to any outside work employees may perform outside state business hours.

State civil service employees have for decades been asked to sign affidavits that neither they nor immediate family members worked for any contractors or vendors who did business with their agency but this regulation is far more restrictive.

The five-page memo being sent out via email to DOA employees said the purpose of the policy “is to prevent employees from participating in outside employment that may be detrimental to the DOA’s mission and public image.”

The governor only last week attended a campaign fundraiser hosted by a state vendor who has a $380,000 state contract but it’s not considered a conflict because, the vendor said, it was held “after hours.”

Corporations with lucrative multi-million-dollar contracts with the state are allowed—encouraged, even—to contribute to the governor’s wife’s foundation with no apparent concern about conflicts of interest. The governor, in fact, even posed with his wife for a photo that is featured on the foundation’s home page.

Could that be construed as a subtle solicitation of contributions on the part of the governor, and thus a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

So much for public image.

Outside employment is defined by Policy 95 as “any non-DOA activity for which economic benefit is received,” including but not limited to:

• Employment with any non-DOA employer;

• contracts to provide consulting, personal, or professional services to non-DOA individuals or entities, or

• Self-employment (an individual who operates a business or profession as a sole proprietor, partner in a partnership, or any other type of legal business entity).

Policy 95 defines economic benefit in the context of the policy as “any compensation or benefit an employee receives for his outside employment that has a monetary value, e.g. payroll check, cash payments, share of profits, share of stocks, equity participation, etc.”

Any current DOA employee planning to engage or already engaged in outside employment will be required to complete an Outside Employment Disclosure Statement form and forward it to his supervisor for review and consideration.

The supervisor will review the statement and make a recommendation to either approve or deny the request and the supervisor would forward the form, along with his recommendations, to the section head, who then would make the final decision to approve or deny the request. If the section head is unsure, he will be required to consult with the DOA Office of Human Resources (OHR) and if necessary, OHR would contact the Board of Ethics for further guidance.

On closer examination of the entire five-page document, it appears to be sorely lacking in firm, definitive policy and heavy on vague but subjective policy enforcement by too many section heads on individual whims. In more common venacular, enforcement is strictly fly by the seat of the pants with ever-shifting interpretations that could all too easily hinge on the personalities involved.

“Original disclosure statements for outside employment must be forwarded by the section to OHR for filing and copies should be kept by the supervisor in a confidential file,” the memo says.

The policy and accompanying memo are already causing an undercurrent of discontent among many state employees.

One DOA employee said he has no outside income but nonetheless feels it is no business of the state what he does after 5 p.m. “This just smacks of …. the old ‘1984 Big Brother is watching thing,’” he said in an email to OHR.

“I object strongly, on principle alone. I don’t care if I am a male stripper on Friday nights or if I repair cars in my back yard on Sunday mornings—it is none of your or anyone’s business.”

“At this moment in time, I am so angry that I have no intention of signing this thing…and I am sure that I am not alone,” he said. “What happens if I don’t sign? Would you really fire me—after 36 years?”

There was no indication as to whether or not Policy 95 would also apply to non-classified employees in the governor’s office.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »