Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Where has the LSU Board of Supervisors been during the recent run of fraternity, administrative, athletic turmoil?

March 25, 2019 by tomaswell

A prudent individual who follows the news might well be asking what the hell’s going on out at LSU?

It’s certainly a fair question.

The disconcerting stories have been piling up at Louisiana’s flagship university with each new story causing more head-scratching than the last.

In 2015, SIGMA CHI fraternity was kicked off campus for three years following an investigation into drug use and hazing on October 17 at the chapter house. A fraternity member’s overdose death that same day was not connected to incidents at the frat house, investigators determined.

In September 2017, PHI DELTA THETA’s general headquarters announced that it had formally suspended and revoke the charter from its LSU chapter following the binge-drinking and hazing death of Maxwell Gruver despite the fact that the fraternity had an alcohol-free housing policy and a blanket anti-hazing policy in place.

Then apparently unable to see the writing on the wall, DELTA KAPPA EPSILON (DKE), better known as the Dekes made infamous by the movie Animal House, got its charter revoked by the national organization following the arrest of nine present and former DKE members following reports of hazing that involved urinating on pledges and forcing them to lie in ice water, on glass.

Without attempting to minimize the gravity of those incidents—students died, after all—binge drinking has always existed in frat houses as boys away from their mommies and daddies for the first time, go more than a little crazy on testosterone overload.

But what about the adults at the Ole War Skule? How do they explain their unrestrained behavior of late?

First there was the LSU basketball program that came under the dual microscopes of the NCAA and the FBI. Head coach WILL WADE was suspended after FBI wiretaps caught him allegedly discussing payments to a recruit with sports agent Christian Dawkins. The player, Javonte Smart is a standout freshman guard.

Actually, Wade was not suspended until he refused to meet with LSU administrators to discuss the investigation. Wade initially agreed to talk but canceled when he learned NCAA investigators would be in the meeting.

But the basketball probe took an ugly turn.

Before news of the basketball investigation became public knowledge, another scandal rocked Baton Rouge when it was learned that JOHN PAUL FUNES was arrested for embezzling more than $800,000 from the Our Lady of the Lake Foundation.

Funes made more than $283,000 per year as president of the foundation which is the fundraising arm of OLOL hospital that raises money for such projects as the new OLOL Children’s Hospital.

In addition to allegedly embezzling the money from the foundation, he reportedly also gave foundation funds to the parent of an LSU ATHLETE, supposedly as salary for a job.

The dust still hasn’t settled on the OLOL-LSU basketball drama even as new revelations keep popping up like some kind of Whack-a-Mole game of financial chicanery.

On March 19, a state audit revealed that the LSU SCHOOL of VETERINARY MEDICINE paid a faculty member more than $400,000 in salary and benefits over more than three years even though the “employee” failed to carry out his employment duties from August 2015 to September 2018.

Despite being told by LSU to appear for work for the Fall 2018 semester, and despite his failure to do so, he was still employed as of January 24.

“The faculty member knowingly received 38 months of LSU salary and benefits without performing commensurate work,” the audit said.

So, how in the name of fiduciary responsibility was this allowed to happen? Who was minding the store out at the School of Veterinary Medicine? Someone has to be held accountable for this.

Three days after that story made news, on March 22, it was learned that four LSU administrators earning six-figure incomes had RESIGNED after failing to comply with a state law that requires that they register their vehicles in Louisiana and obtain a Louisiana driver’s license.

The law was passed in 2013 at the urging of the late C.B. Forgotston in a bill sponsored by then State Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite).

The four were identified as:

  • Andrea Ballinger, chief technology officer: $268,000 per year;
  • Matthew Helm, assistant vice-president in information technology services, $202,000;
  • Susan Flanagin, director in information technology services, $149,000, and
  • Thomas Glenn, director of information technology services, $14,000.

All four are from Illinois and three of the four worked part of their time for LSU from Illinois

In addition to their salaries, three of the four were provided stipends to help with moving expenses. Ballinger received $20,000; Helm $15,000, and Flanagin $5,000. So, just how were those moving expenses used by the three if they didn’t physically move here?

All four said had they known of the law requiring registering their vehicles and obtaining state driver’s licenses, they would not have taken the LSU jobs.

So, this was not explained to them when they were hired?

And persons making six-figure incomes are allowed to work for a state university while living three states away? Sweet.

Universities, by their nature, tend to be an autonomous part of the communities in which they are located, impenetrable to the outside world, but this is ridiculous.

Someone has to answer for these lapses and that someone begins and ends at the top of the food chain at LSU: President F. King Alexander on whose watch all the above events have occurred.

LouisianaVoice wrote extensively about ALEXANDER almost exactly six years ago when it became evident that he was in line to become the next LSU president.

King was appointed during the Jindal administration and Gov. Edwards indicated he wanted to keep King in place. Was that a wise decision in retrospect?

Former chairman of the Louisiana Board of Regents RICHARD LIPSEY is calling for the firing of both Alexander and Athletic Director Joe Alleva for what he calls a “lack of leadership.”

Alleva, you may remember, was athletic director at Duke before coming to LSU. While at Duke, rape charges were brought against the school LACROSSE team, charges that proved to be a hoax and which ultimately cost the local district attorney his law license over his eagerness to prosecute the players.

Alleva, meanwhile, didn’t even wait for charges to be filed. He cratered early and dismantled the lacrosse program before due process could be carried out.

Fast forward to LSU, 2015. Alleva badly botched the Les Miles situation, hovering on the verge of firing the likable coach before Miles saved his job with a 19-7 win over TEXAS A&M. But the die had been cast and everyone knew it was a matter of time before Alleva, who was born with a serious birth defect (no spine) would cave again to the big money donors who wanted Miles’s head.

Four games into the 2016 season, Alleva PULLED THE PLUG and fired Miles following a heartbreaking 18-13 loss at Auburn, proving once and for all he possessed the subtlety and tact of an air raid siren at a wake.

I don’t know if Lipsey’s recommendation is the needed remedy at LSU. The Board of Supervisors, after all, was appointed to oversee operations of the LSU system and not to be mere puppets of the governor.

Oh, wait, my mistake. Turns out they were.

Posted in Audit Reports, Boards, Corruption, Ethics, Higher Education, LSU, Media | 2 Comments »

Ten days left in March fundraiser: Please contribute

March 21, 2019 by tomaswell

No one ever assigned me to create LouisianaVoice or to post stories of political corruption, ethics violations, and back room deals.

I do it because I have a passion for good, honest government. I know it’s a pipe dream, that we will never have completely transparent representation from our elected and appointed officials because they have their agendas and they act many times out of interest for their own career advancement and not for the good of Louisiana citizens.

And even though it’s a goal that is beyond our reach, I will never cease, as long as I have the ability to string two or more coherent thoughts together, to strive for that end because I have an unquenchable belief in the good of the people of this country and this state. I believe we can overcome the petty politics of self-interest if we are united in our demand for the standards of decency.

And that’s why I ask for your support. It takes time, effort, and financial resources to continue in this endeavor. I was forced into retirement from my state employment eight years ago because of this blog and what it stands for, but that’s a consequence I readily accepted with no regrets and no hard feelings toward those who made that decision for me.

If you can and if you have the inclination to do so, I humbly and gratefully ask that you contribute to my efforts by clicking HERE or on the yellow DONATE button to the right of this post and give what you can. Or you can send your check to: LouisianaVoice, P.O. Box 922, Denham Springs, Louisiana 70727.

As always, your help is greatly appreciated.

Tom Aswell, Publisher

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Even as LSU basketball and veterinary program scandals percolate to a boil, events at Southern fly under the radar

March 21, 2019 by tomaswell

As reports of financial improprieties in the LSU BASKETBALL program, the SCHOOL of VETERINARY MEDICINE and a children’s foundation at a Baton Rouge HOSPITAL compete for headlines, another scandal has been quietly brewing across town that thus far has managed to fly under the radar of news reporters and investigators.

It’s nothing on the magnitude of the pay to play story that has rocked higher education at the nation’s elite universities, but it is indicative of a growing problem of a deterioration of trust, integrity and morality behind the walls of academia.

Once considered paragons of virtue, propriety, and incorruptibility, our colleges and universities have become politicized by draconian budgetary cuts to the point that schools find themselves searching for their collective moral compasses even as they strive for funds to remain afloat.

But budgetary cuts alone can’t account for the some of the shenanigans we see taking place on our college campuses. Sometimes it’s just outright contempt for the rules of common decency.

Take Southern University, the state’s largest predominantly black university, for example.

The school has, with nobody taking notice, become embroiled in a dispute involving the firing of four faculty members in the Department of Speech-Language Pathology/Audiology.

The firings occurred when the faculty members refused to go along with:

  • The creation of a so-called shadow, or non-existent curriculum to benefit a single student;
  • The falsifying of another student’s grade from F to B so that she could graduate even though she failed to attend the class;
  • Allowing a student to enroll despite her being under suspension from the university;
  • Permitting a major course to be offered as an independent study when the department does not have independent study, again to benefit a single student;
  • Nepotism;
  • Bullying and threatening behavior by administration officials when faculty members questioned the legality or propriety of their actions;

The four, Dr. Elaine Lewnau, Dr. Christy Moland, Dr. Terrilynn Gillis, and Dr. Marilyn Seibert, are represented by Baton Rouge attorney J. Arthur Smith, III.

During Monday’s hearing by the Southern University System-wide Grievance Committee, committee chairperson academic counselor Marla Dickerson consistently interrupted Smith with a barrage of questions despite Smith’s repeated requests that he be allowed to complete his statements to the committee.

The entirety of Monday’s hearing was the very definition of a kangaroo court as the four faculty members were also interrupted time and time again as they attempted to give their opening statements.

Then, without a motion or vote to do so, Dickerson called an executive session, saying the hearing was not a public meeting and the committee was not a public body even though any decision it may make is clearly defined as an official action by a public body under state law. Dickerson’s saying otherwise does not change that.

The state’s OPEN MEETING STATUTE, R.S. 42:16 (A)(25) reads:

In order for a public body to enter into an executive session, a vote of 2/3 of members present at an open meeting, for which proper notice was given pursuant to R.S. 42:19, is necessary — along with an accompanying statement of the reason for entering into the executive session. The vote of each member on the motion to enter into executive session along with the reason for entering the executive session must be recorded and entered into the minutes. (emphasis added)

So, the “Grievance Committee” violated the state’s open meetings statutes which require public hearings of grievances should those filing grievances request a public hearing, which all four in fact, did request.

The same section says:

Further, the public body may not enter into executive session for the purposes of this discussion, if the individual requests that the matter be discussed in an open meeting. (emphasis added)

Dickerson, in calling the closed session, ejected not only LouisianaVoice, but also the four professors and their legal counsel (Smith) as well as the legal counsel for the university itself (Winston Decuir), thus preventing legal counsel for each side from hearing any testimony by witnesses.

The grievance was filed against Dr. James Ammons, executive vice president and executive vice chancellor of Southern University.

For the 2018 Spring Semester, a shadow curriculum consisting of three courses, was approved for a single student, even though there is no record of a syllabus for such courses and no record of student performance in the courses for which she received a grade of A. “This is grade fraud,” Smith said, because “The department chair did not know that these courses were being given to the student” and “there is no record of ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) certification standards achieved in any of the courses.

“Because these courses were put into (the student’s) schedule without any knowledge of the department chair (or) graduate program director, in other words, illegal courses, and taught by…illegally appointed department chair and graduate program director, respectively,” Smith said. The previous department chair and graduate program director were removed by Ammons without reason, in violation of school policy, Smith said.

Smith said a major course was offered to a single student as an independent study in the 2018 Fall semester even though the Speech Pathology Department does not offer independent study, which Smith said violates the accuracy of the ASHA accreditation report where no independent study has ever been reported. Again, Smith said this constituted grade fraud.

Further, Smith said Dr. Stephen Enwefa removed Dr. Lewnau from her duties of teaching the course without reason and appointed his wife, Dr. Regina Enwefa, to teach the course. “This is nepotism despite the insistence by Dr. Ammons and President (Ray) Belton’s general counsel that the university is not in violation of the state’s nepotism laws.”

The student was to have completed an unauthorized clinic in the 2018 Spring semester, Smith said, but neither the site nor the clinical hours were approved by the Clinical Education director. The student was given an F because she attended only two weeks of the eight-week clinic, but Ammons changed her grade to a B. “The grade of B that was authorized by Dr. Ammons is fraudulent,” Smith said.

“Because Dr. Moland refused to give credit for something of which she had no record; because she would not falsify records for this student and lie, Dr. Ammons fired her,” Smith said.

Likewise, Dr. Gillis said she was fired for refusing to violate the ASHA professional ethics and because she “refused to submit to the illegal orders of Dr. Ammons.”

Dr. Seibert said she entered into an agreement with Southern whereby she would be paid $20,000 for teaching in the Speech-Language Pathology Department during the 2018 Fall semester but was subsequently paid only $7,500.

Dr. Lewnau added, “As chair of the admissions committee for the master’s degree program in speech-language pathology, Dr. Gillis had been contacted several times about the admission of 6 students who had applied and been denied because they did not meet the minimum admissions requirements.

“These contacts came from various offices on campus, including the President’s office, the Board of Supervisors’ office and the office of the Executive Vice President/Executive Vice Chancellor and someone who claimed to be a member of the Southern University Alumni Association, for the purpose of trying to get these students into the master’s degree program.

“Dr. Gillis had to repeatedly stated that the students just did not qualify for admissions. After Dr. (Donna) Dejean and Dr. Lewnau were removed from their administrative offices and replaced by the husband and wife team of Drs. Stephen and Regina Enwefa, and Dr. Gillis was given a letter of termination from the University, effective May 2019, these students were admitted to the master’s degree program by the Enwefas.

“Bear in mind, these students were admitted by the Enwefas who together and without any input from the rest of the faculty admitted them and without re-opening the admissions process to other students who might interested.

“The invitation was extended to these students who had been supported by individuals from the offices cited above. We believe that this was a contributing factor to Dr. Gillis’ being terminated. She refused to bow to the pressure placed upon her in the matter of these admissions. Since then all admissions, undergraduate and graduate, are administered by Stephen and Regina Enwefa; there is no longer an admissions committee as there had been in the past. Once again, nepotism!”

 

Posted in Corruption, Crime, Ethics, Finances, Fraud, Higher Education, Layoffs, Media, Public Records | 13 Comments »

You might think you recognize this guy, but you’d be wrong. Excerpts from a thoroughly researched Tyler Bridges book

March 20, 2019 by tomaswell

As far back as 1973, he learned how easily he could manipulate the media with a proven formula for winning attention: tap into white fears and frustrations by seizing on hot-button issues and relying on the media to publicize his views and activities.

It didn’t matter if he exaggerated or embellished his accomplishments so long as it got him the attention he needed and craved.

His followers were adamant in saying they were “more interested in what he’ll do than what he’s done in the past. It wouldn’t influence me one bit what he did in the past.”

Television became all-important for him. His sound bites came across particularly well as television news began airing stories on his campaign virtually every night.

“If I can do it, with the political machine against me now, with my character savaged for weeks on end…if I can overcome tremendous spending by the opposition, you, ladies and gentlemen, can do the same thing.”

He was at his best when tapping into whites’ frustration by denouncing special interests and a government more concerned with helping undeserving people on welfare than with the “hard-working, taxpaying middle-class.” Once in office, however, he found it more difficult to actually put his ideas into law.

“The greatest problem we face in this country is the rising welfare class,” he said at every rally.

“He says in public what we all talk about in private,” said one supporter. They echoed that thought repeatedly throughout the campaign. But his rallies had a darker side. His followers were angry and when he pushed hot-button issues, they thrust their fists in the air, stomped their feet and chanted his name over and over.

Even though his crowds were huge, he felt a need to make them even larger, so he fudged the numbers unrealistically upward.

A lawmaker said he was all about polarization and driving a wedge but he insisted he was the only candidate speaking to the anxieties of voters.

Voters’ first response to the truth about his past activities was defensive. To admit he was a fraud and a racist was to admit that they were being misled or were bigots themselves. When a mirror was held up to the electorate, they were being shown that they and their candidate were one and the same.

In one focus group setting during the campaign, a moderator asked a series of questions about a hypothetical candidate. “What would you think of a candidate who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War and lied about it later?”

“I can’t imagine a man who wouldn’t serve his country,” said one respondent.

“What would you think of a candidate who hadn’t paid his taxes?”

“I pay my taxes,” a woman replied, “and I expect a politician to.”

Then, with a second focus group, the same questions were asked but the candidate was named this time.

When asked about the draft evasion, one man said, “Everybody of that generation was trying to evade the draft. I went to Vietnam, but I would have evaded going there if I could have.”

What about his not paying taxes?

“Only dumb people pay taxes,” a woman said. “Politicians and millionaires don’t because they’re smart. He must be smart.”

What had been unacceptable character flaws in an anonymous candidate were suddenly acceptable when the candidate’s name was revealed.

Voters were faced with a difficult decision in the election: who was worse, a bigot or a crook? While that prospect paralyzed many voters, it energized others.

He did not like strategy sessions. He cared more about ideas than tactics. He figured his approach was succeeding thus far, so why change?

One observer said he thought that if the candidate won, the (nation) would be set adrift.

Of his supporters, one veteran political observer said, “They’re educated people. They’re not hicks. But they’re mad as hell, they’re saying, ‘Screw the establishment. Throw the bums out.’ That’s what he stands for.”

Another political insider said he had an “enduring faith” in the basic wisdom and decency of the American people. But the anger and hate in one female supporter’s voice scared him.

He would make such outrageous claims during the debates that opponents had no way to prepare responses.

He attacked his opponents for selling out the hard-pressed middle class by raising taxes.

At the same time, he also pushed two other hot-button issues, calling for a clampdown on illegal immigration and advocating “fair trade,” not “free trade,” with Mexico.

His call for an “America First” position became his mantra throughout his campaign.

There was a “cult-like figure aspect” to the candidate, one opponent said. “That only lasts a short time, until people catch on to the reality,” he said.

He skillfully tapped into the grievances of frustrated white voters, voters described as “very dissatisfied with the political system in this country,” said one pollster. “I think it’s about half racist and half ‘I’m just hacked off, and how can I send a message?’”

Nearly half the people who voted for his opponent did so because they did not want him elected.

Think you recognize the candidate described here?

Nope, it’s not Trump.

It’s Louisiana’s very own neo-Nazi David Duke as described in several passages throughout Tyler Bridges’s frighteningly insightful book, The Rise and Fall of David Duke.

Bridges has done an incredibly thorough job of researching the political odyssey of Duke and laying out his dangerous philosophy. I recommend the book to anyone and everyone who truly loves this country and is concerned with the nasty mood of those who hold themselves to be somehow better than others because of the color of their skin.

Oddly enough, Bridges notes, Duke wasn’t nearly as obsessed with African Americans as he was and continues to be with Jews. The fact is, he simply hates Jews and idolizes Adolf Hitler.

I purchased the book from Bridges at last November’s Louisiana State Library Book Fair and it’s a volume that will occupy a special place in my library. I don’t want to ever forget exactly what this guy stands for because his ideas are dangerous and, well, sick.

Bridges did devote a passing reference to Trump that is especially telling. “Non-traditional conservatives, however, found him candid, authentic and refreshing. Duke saw something of himself in Trump’s approach.”

Later, Bridges quotes Duke as saying, “I do support his (Trump’s) candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action.”

A few pages further, there is this: “Andrew Anglin, editor of the Daily Stormer, a popular website among neo-Nazis, said, ‘Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign.'”

Following the Charlottesville white supremacist rally attended by Duke and led by Richard Spencer (complete with his “Hail Trump” salute) at which white supremacist James Fields plowed his Dodge Charger into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer, Trump couldn’t bring himself to condemn the Nazis. Instead, he made reference to “violence on many sides. On many sides.”

Stephanie Grace, a writer for the New Orleans Advocate, weighed in. “As for those, like Trump, who still can’t or choose not to see what’s right in front of them, here’s a handy rule of thumb that might help sort through the ‘many sides’ confusion: If David Duke is on one side, you belong on the other.”

 

Posted in Book Review, Corruption, Ethics | 8 Comments »

The strange odyssey of an unorthodox university president

March 19, 2019 by tomaswell

He was a small-time celebrity as a street hustler, but Ricco Bastardo wanted more in life. He desperately craved respectability and recognition. And more than anything, he wanted his name in the Social Register.

His only success in life had come thanks to a huge grubstake from his father, owner of a chain of seedy bars, strip clubs and cheap motels. He had parlayed that into a chain of lucrative storefront predator loan companies that he turned into a mega fortune, made on the backs of the poor.

There were the persistent rumors of mob connections. People who knew him swore Ricco was tied into the mob and that his payday loan operations were merely fronts for a massive money-laundering operation. There was no way, they said, that he could have amassed such a large fortune legitimately.

It was impossible to prove, of course, because his tax records were a tightly-held secret.

He took not one, not two, but three trophy wives over the years in his desperate—but vain—attempt to climb the ladder to join society’s elite upper crust.

But now he saw his opportunity and he was determined to seize the day. The presidency of Hope and Change University was being vacated and he announced his desire for the appointment.

No one gave him a ghost of a chance. He had zero experience running a university and, in fact, his own academic achievements had been called into question but they, like his tax returns, were locked away from prying eyes. The only thing anyone knew for sure about his scholastic pursuits was that he was admitted to the prestigious school up east only after his father bestowed a generous endowment upon the institution.

But he refused to allow that to discourage him from his dream of social acceptance and the adulation for which he yearned. He pushed his way to the front of the line by insulting the other applicants, hurling personal attacks at them to the point of outright libel, disparaging their families, and embellishing his own dubious, even nonexistent achievements.

There were rumors, as yet unproven, of outside help from rival university presidents who saw an opportunity to gain advantage over Hope and Change with Ricco’s appointment. Coincidentally, confidential emails, embarrassing to his leading rival, were released only days before the selection committee was scheduled to vote on a new president which only served to further fuel the persistent rumors.

Against all odds and in defiance of all logic, he was chosen and he set about immediately putting his stamp on the university, dismantling the legacy of Hope and Change in the process.

His first priority was to shut down the school infirmary, depriving thousands of students of medical care. Just as important was his insistence on constructing an ivy-covered wall around the school to keep out the riffraff. The university was his domain and low-income residents from the city where it was located were suddenly unwelcome. Education was strictly for the select few and strictly off-limits to all others.

As for the school’s heretofore powerhouse football team, the Fighting Scapegoats, Ricco Bastardo proclaimed that he was far more knowledgeable than the scouting reports compiled on upcoming opponents. Moreover, he insisted he knew more about football than the coaches. And he continued to hold himself blameless as the team went down to a humiliating string of defeats.

He decided the entire administrative structure of the university needed a change to shake off perceived (by him) doldrums. He announced four key appointments and a string of controversial changes:

  • Viziato Bastardo, his oldest son, was named Dean of Student Life;
  • Son-in-law Ignorante Opportunista, Dean of Arts and Sciences;
  • Daughter Splendido Opportunista (wife of Ignorante) Administrative Vice President;
  • Unemployed Uber driver Rancido Mungere, was named school band director. His first move was to abolish racial quotas by removing all the black keys from the orchestra piano.
  • Cooperative programs with other universities were promptly abolished by Ricco, who said they were not in Hope and Change’s best interests. He then entered into new cooperative agreements between Hope and Change’s advanced computer technology programs and a local animal husbandry school’s goat farm.
  • He converted the university’s power and heating systems to coal-fired furnaces and put the dining hall on an all-fried fast-food menu.
  • Even as he vocally lamented the “invasion of third-world students” enrolled at Hope and Change, he employed undocumented workers for Buildings and Grounds maintenance.

Both the Economics and Earth Sciences departments lost their accreditation within the first year of Ricco’s administration.

Finally, when Hope and Change University’s newspaper published an editorial critical of the loss of important research grants under his administration, Ricco abolished the publication, calling it the “enemy of the students.”

And whenever he was criticized for any of his actions, which was often, he invariably responded not with diplomatic, tactful explanations—ways in which he could defend his actions in a concise, orderly, structured manner, but with 280-character tweets, a practice that his peers felt was demeaning and beneath the dignity of a university president.

But those out in the countryside who had never been to college, some of whom never finished high school, were greatly pleased.

He was communicating on their level.

And members of the Board of Regents, terrified at incurring his twitter wrath, became his enablers by simply doing nothing.

Posted in Politics | 9 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »