Feeds:
Posts
Comments

“It is well settled that an employee of a public entity may not be discharged for exercising his constitutionally protected rights to free of expression…”

“The law has recognized that there are some types of speech, which by their very nature, address matters of public concern. For instance, the disclosure of misbehavior by public officials ia a matter of public concern and is therefore entitled to constitutional protection.”

—Excerpts from the Jan. 25 ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeal that overturned a decision by 19th Judicial District Court Judge William Morvant in which Morvant had ruled in favor of ATC Commissioner Troy Hebert whose attorney, E. Wade Shows, argued that State Alcohol and Tobacco Control agent Randall Kling had no right of action in his claim of retaliatory firing against ATC Commissioner Hebert because, according to state arguments, Kling’s complaints did not involve “matters of public concern” and that his complaints about Hebert’s questionable actions were “in his role as an employee and not as a concerned citizen.”

The administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal apparently has a double standard in the manner in which it handles complaints of sexual harassment against appointees.

When Kelli Suire accused her former boss, commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy J. Painter, of sexual harassment, it mattered little to Jindal and then-Chief of Staff Stephen Waguespack that she had already recanted those allegations. Painter was immediately called to the governor’s office and summarily fired from his job.

But when Painter’s successor, Troy Hebert, was accused of sexual harassment—and other transgressions—by an ATC agent nearly two years ago, it was the agent, Randall Kling, who was fired and the Jindal administration then threw its financial and legal resources behind defending Hebert, who remains employed.

But Kling may yet have the last word in what has now turned into a legal battle between him and the Department of Revenue, the agency under whose budget ATC is funded, but now the issue is retaliation against his right of free speech.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal on Jan. 25 overturned a lower court decision which found no right of action by Kling and which dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice.

Kling and other ATC employees initially submitted a complaint to former Revenue Secretary Cynthia Bridges about what they considered to be offensive behavior on the part of Hebert on March 10, 2011. Then on March 16, 22 and 25, Kling submitted additional complaints to Dee Everett, director of human resources at Revenue.

Among his complaints were claims of threats, hostile work environment, systematic intimidation and discrimination, favoritism, humiliation, harassment, inefficiency and morale problems at ATC.

On March 30, 2011, Kling was terminated and on May 26, he filed suit against the Department of Revenue, claiming that he had been fired in retaliation for his complaints regarding Hebert and his department.

The department filed objections of no cause of action, claiming that Kling’s allegations failed to set forth a cause of action for a free speech retaliation claim because his complaints did not involve “matters of public concern,” but rather were merely the complaints of an employee against his superior that were not entitled to constitutional protection.

Kling subsequently filed an amended petition in which he set forth 24 alleged violations of agency policy, procedure and law, including allegations that Hebert:

• Compromised the Civil Service Performance Planning and Review System;

• Operated the ATC in total disregard of State Civil Service rules;

• Used state resources for personal and political gain and in furtherance of his plan to seek elective office;

• Attempted to undermine ethics laws by attempting to form a non-profit entity whereby funding could be solicited and received from the alcohol industry which is regulated by ATC, and boasting that the alcohol industry would gladly donate funds to furnish his proposed new office suite at ATC;

• Schemed to build himself a new office in such a manner as to avoid legislative and Division of Administration oversight;

• Harassed employees who cooperated with the investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General and the Louisiana State Police concerning the conduct of former commissioner Painter;

• Repeatedly violated sensitive computer policies (a charge for which Painter was indicted and is scheduled to stand trial on April 22), which violations had the potential to jeopardize sensitive law enforcement initiatives and compromised the safety of ATC agents;

• Was guilty of misconduct that threatened the ability of ATC to properly perform its duties;

• Subjected ATC employees to sexual harassment, gender discrimination, humiliation and systematic employment practices that placed ATC agents in potential danger, and

• Was responsible for a mass exit of qualified and experienced ATC agents.

The state, choosing to eschew the attorney general’s office in defending Hebert, instead contracted with outside counsel E. Wade Shows who promptly argued that Kling was attempting to assert a claim for retaliatory discharge due to complaints that were not made by him individually, but by at least 11 other employees of ATC.

It might appear somewhat unusual to argue that a single employee had no cause of action—because his claims were based on the complaints of 11 co-workers—since that argument would seem to acknowledge that agency problems were not confined to a single employee but instead were experienced by several others as well and that problems were agency-wide in nature.

Shows also argued that Kling’s amended petition failed to state a viable cause of action as the complaints he made were simply that of an “unhappy employee” and not a “matter of public concern,” and therefore not constitutionally protected.

Apparently the trial court judge, A. William Morvant, agreed.

Morvant, at oral arguments held on Jan. 23, 2012, refused to allow Kling’s attorney to argue on the basis that the opposition brief was untimely and also refused to allow Kling to testify on the exception of no right of action, although he did allow Kling’s testimony to be proffered (offered into evidence).

Morvant subsequently ruled that Kling’s petition did not set forth a cause of action for retaliatory discharge because none of the allegations rose to the level of public concern, but were merely workplace criticisms by Kling in his role as an employee and not as a concerned citizen (see: Kelli Suire’s complaint against Painter for the contrast in the manner in which similar complaints are handled by the governor’s office—LouisianaVoice, Feb. 6 post https://louisianavoice.com/2013/02/06/emerging-claims-lawsuits-could-transform-murphy-painter-from-predator-to-all-too-familiar-victim-of-jindal-reprisals/).

Morvant signed his judgment a year ago, on Feb. 1, 2012, sustaining the exception of no right of action, thereby dismissing Kling’s lawsuit with prejudice (meaning final judgment as opposed to without prejudice which means the matter may be revisited).

Kling appealed and the First Circuit ultimately disagreed with Morvant—and Shows—and reversed Morvant’s ruling late last month.

The First Circuit, which appeared to offer a lesson in law to Morvant, said, “…In order to have an interest in asserting a retaliatory discharge claim, Mr. Kling does not have to be a direct recipient of the conduct complained of…”

“Mr. Kling claims that he was terminated from his position in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutionally protected right of free speech. His interest in prosecuting this lawsuit is not as a victim of harassment or discrimination, but as an employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about Mr. Hebert’s conduct,” the appellate court ruling says.

“Thus, the fact that he may not individually have been a victim of some of the complaints in the amended petition, such as gender discrimination, is of no moment in determining whether he has a right of action to assert a retaliatory discharge claim.

“We find that (ATC) failed to meet its burden of establishing that Mr. Kling had no interest in prosecuting this retaliation claim….Therefore, we find that the trial court committed legal error in granting the exception of no right of action.”

The ruling then went on to address a little something contained in the First Amendment—the right of free speech:

“Article I, Section 7 (of the U.S. Constitution), on which Mr. Kling’s lawsuit is based, gives Louisiana citizens the right to speak, write, and publish their sentiments on any subject. It is well settled that an employee of a public entity may not be discharged for exercising his constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression despite his at-will status.

“The law has recognized that there are some types of speech, which by their very nature, address matters of public concern,” the ruling continued. “For instance, the disclosure of misbehavior by public officials is a matter of public concern and is therefore entitled to constitutional protection.

“These allegations of unethical and perhaps illegal conduct on Mr. Hebert’s part clearly are matters of public concern.

“We find that Mr. Kling’s petition does set forth a cause of action for retaliatory discharge and reverse the trial court’s judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice.

“The judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is also hereby reversed.

“This matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the ruling said, adding that all costs of the appeal were assessed against the Department of Revenue.

The undated letter from someone named Patti Schneider came complete with official letterhead, a New Jersey return address and even a telephone number.

Patti Schneider, according to the letter, is the State Director for the National American Miss beauty contest which, near as I can tell, is open to five age categories: Teen (16-18), Junior Teen (13-15), Pre-Teen (10-12), Junior Pre-Teen (7-9) and of course, the forever enduring and charming Princess (4-6).

I was immediately taken back to my days of covering pageants. I once covered the Miss Louisiana Pageant in Monroe and the guest was former Miss America Mary Ann Mobley and when she came down the runway and sang, I’m certain she was singing only to me because she glanced in my direction. Once. Ever-so-briefly. (She was obviously trying to be discreet, but her admiring sidelong look was a dead giveaway to everyone in the auditorium.) I asked my wife if she saw how Mary Ann (we’re that close) smiled at me and she said yes, adding that it was a bit unusual because most women laugh out loud at me.

And then there was that incredibly drawn-out Queen Dixie Gem Pageant in Louisiana Tech’s Howard Auditorium in Ruston way back in the late ’60s or early ’70s. The Queen Dixie Gem Pageant is the culmination of the annual Lincoln Parish Peach Festival. Some memories fade over time while others are etched indelibly on the brain. In this case the exact year is hazy but the details that follow are as clear as if they occurred yesterday.

To set the stage, the emcee was caught up in his own narcissistic sense of importance and did not understand that the show was not about him.

There were 23 contestants and he had index cards with biographical information on each one. Each contestant appeared onstage four times: casual street wear, evening gown, swimsuit, and talent. The emcee was supposed to give one or two biographical items each time a contestant came out. Instead, he read what seemed like each girl’s entire genealogical history with each appearance.

Do you have any concept of how incredibly maddening it is to hear some variation of “…and she enjoys the game of love—tennis”—92 times in one evening?

The insistence of giving every detail of each contestant’s life four times resulted in the pageant’s plodding on until well past midnight—more than five hours.

But the best was yet to come. The emcee, either an instructor or a student at a charm school in Shreveport, had compiled an interminable list of “things to do on a rainy day” that he was determined to get all the way through while the judges were compiling their final tabulations. This is just a fraction of that list:

“Read a book.”

“Bake a cake.”

“Clean the house.”

“Wash the car.”

“Write a letter to a friend.”

“Sprinkle perfume in your drawers.”

Yep, he really did say that. Of course he meant bureau drawers (at least we think that’s what he meant) but it didn’t matter because no one chose to take it that way and needless to say, it more or less brought down an otherwise exhausted house. We could barely hear the announcement of the winner’s name over the laughter that must have lasted a good 20 minutes.

But back to Ms. Schneider and the National American Miss. (The organization’s acronym is NAM, so I hope it doesn’t cause any flashbacks with our readers.)

“Your daughter has been referred to me as a possible candidate who may enjoy modeling,” the letter from Ms. Schneider begins. “I am writing to tell you that she is eligible to compete in this year’s official state pageant. This is her invitation to an Open Call for the National American Miss Louisiana State Pageant, the official preliminary to the national pageant held each year in sunny California at Hollywood and Disneyland.”

After waving the prizes like a carrot on a stick ($20,000 in cash, modeling scholarships, college scholarships, and a new 2013 Ford Mustang convertible—in all, more than $500,000 in cash, prizes and scholarships), the letter continued.

“National American Miss is a pageant experience designed for your daughter, today’s girl; that’s why we do not have a swimsuit competition. We believe that kids should look like kids, that’s why we have a no make-up rule for participants age 12 and under and she is not required to perform a talent. Scoring is based on an individual’s personality, poise and confidence.

“We are providing these Open Call session dates for all candidates who are interested in finding out more information about our production. We will hosting the Open Calls at these times:

• Tuesday, Feb. 26 at the Best Western Inn & Conference Center at 2720 North MacArthur Dr. in Alexandria;

• Wednesday, Feb. 27 at the Holiday Inn at 2032 NE Evangeline Thruway in Lafayette;

• Thursday, Feb. 28 at the Crowne Plaza, 4728 Constitution Ave., Baton Rouge.

Applicants may choose either the 6 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. Open Call times in either city.

Attractive as Ms. Schneider’s offer is, however, we’re going to have to pass.

Oh, it’s not that we don’t have daughters. We do. Three, in fact.

But our youngest was born in 1977 and at 35 and with three children of her own, she might be a tad long in the tooth to qualify.

Now we do have granddaughters aged 17, 11 and six…

Oh, did I mention there’s a $20 registration fee—just for the Open Call. And then there is the National American Miss Apparel Store where one can make online purchases of shirts, sweats, caps, etc. for mom, pop and the little kiddies.

But I’d still like to know who referred my daughter (singular) and which one was being referred. I’m sure she’d be flattered.

Of course the other two might not be too happy at being slighted.

What at first appeared to be a slam-dunk sexual harassment case against former commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) Murphy J. Painter is beginning to look more and more like reprisals on the part of Gov. Bobby Jindal because of Painter’s refusal to acquiesce to administration demands involving several major Jindal campaign contributors.

It wouldn’t be the first time Jindal has fired a subordinate or demoted a legislator because he or she had the temerity to disagree with him, of course. But it would be the first time such tactics were employed in conjunction with criminal charges.

Painter was indicted—somewhat belatedly—on 42 separate counts of computer fraud in connection with his conducting criminal records, background and driver’s license checks on 35 individuals over a three-year period but never on the sexual harassment claims. Nor was he ever indicted on charges that he stalked or conducted surveillance on individuals—even though that claim was given widespread publicity by State Inspector General Stephen Street on May 28, 2012, the day Painter was formally indicted.

That indictment, coincidentally, came down only days after the legislature voted to strip Street’s office of all appropriations for the current fiscal year. Funding for his office was restored only after Street testified before legislators and repeated details of his office’s investigation of Painter as justification of continued funding, Painter says in his motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Painter’s trial on the federal charges is scheduled to begin on April 22. Meanwhile, he has separate civil suits pending against the state and against the woman who accused him of sexual harassment—after she told an OIG investigator that Painter had never harassed her.

We’ll return to the allegations, denials and counter-accusations in due course, but the real issues swirling around Painter appear to be rooted deep in Louisiana politics and back door deals as only a saga of Louisiana political intrigue and corruption can be told.

It was in late summer of 2010 when a series of events in New Orleans and Baton Rouge—unrelated to sexual harassment, computer fraud or surveillance—would culminate in a meeting in the governor’s office which would end Painter’s 34-year career in law enforcement, 14 of which he served as chief criminal deputy under former Ascension Parish Sheriff Harold Tridico.

After losing the 1995 sheriff’s race to current Sheriff Jeff Wiley by fewer than 700 votes, Painter was appointed ATC commissioner by then-Gov. Mike Foster in February of 1996.

New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson had purchased the 26-story building once known as Dominion Tower, or CNG Tower, a year earlier in September of 2009. The building is located across the street from the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. As part of the deal struck between Benson and the state to keep the Saints from moving to San Antonio, the Jindal administration agreed to a 20-year lease of some 325,000 square feet of office space at $24 a square foot for various state agencies, some of whom were paying as little as $12 a square foot before being forced to move to Benson Tower.

At the outset, the state’s obligation was about $7.7 million a year, $2.6 million more than the $5.1 million the state was paying before the move.

Included in the Benson Tower purchase was a 60,000-square-foot plot encompassing a one-block section of LaSalle Street and part of what once was the New Orleans Centre shopping mall.

Champions Square opened on Aug. 21, 2010, with the Saints hosting a pre-season game against the Houston Texans. The facility provided a tailgate party atmosphere and gave up to 8,000 Saints fans who did not have tickets a place to hang out and party while cheering on the Saints.

Champions Square soon became the catalyst in the struggle that would erupt between Painter’s office, the governor’s office and Mercedes-Benz Superdome management firm SMG (formerly Spectacor Management Group). On the fringes of this growing dispute were parties who had more than a passing interest: Benson, the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (LSED), Anheuser-Busch, brewers of Budweiser Beer, and local Anheuser-Busch distributor Southern Eagle Sales & Service.

LSED is a state political subdivision created to oversee operations of the Superdome, the John A. Alario Sr. Event Center, the New Orleans Arena, the Saints training facility, TPC Louisiana, and Zephyr Field, home of the Triple-A baseball team.

Benson, the seven LSED members (each of whom is appointed by the governor) and their families, businesses and business associates, SMG and Southern Eagle combined to contribute more than $203,000 to Jindal campaigns between 2003 and 2012.

In a lawsuit filed against Jindal, the State of Louisiana, the Department of Revenue and Taxation, its former secretary, Cynthia Bridges and Inspector General Street, Painter says that in May of 2010, some three months before Champions Square was officially opened, he met with representatives of SMG and its lobbyist about SMG’s request for a license to serve alcohol in Champions Square on Saints game days.

Budweiser and Southern Eagle stood to be the big winners if the license application was approved.

Painter says in his lawsuit that he informed SMG of several regulatory violations in its proposal and offered suggestions on bringing the proposal into compliance with state laws. SMG’s subsequent license proposal, however, failed to address a number of the problems Painter had outlined in their previous meeting.

When Painter rejected the proposal, SMG arranged a meeting between Painter and SMG attorney, Robert Walmsley, Jr., Painter says in his petition.

Walmsley is a member of the law firm Fishman, Haygood, Phelps, Walmsley, Willis & Swanson of New Orleans which also contributed $5,000 to Jindal’s campaign in October of 2008.

Walmsley, after meeting with Painter, agreed to provide “a written legal opinion to the ATC documenting how SMG’s proposal complied with, or was otherwise exempt from, Louisiana law,” the petition says.

That promised opinion was never provided to ATC, Painter or his counsel, according to the suit.

Within a matter of weeks, Painter was contacted by Jindal executive Counsel Stephen Waguespack, nephew of Ascension Parish Sheriff Wiley. Waguespack asked Painter to cooperate with SMG and to stop using ATC’s legal counsel to address concerns with the Champions Square project being pushed by SMG, Painter says in his petition.

Subsequent to that call, Walmsley sent Painter an email in which he outlined a purported rationale that would allow SMG to qualify for the sought after license but the email, Painter says, did not include Walmsley’s promised written legal opinion. The ATC legal counsel again advised that the SMG proposal did not satisfy legal requirements.

Painter advised Walmsley that the license would not be issued because SMG did not qualify for the proposed exception as had been suggested. Painter also advised SMG “that alternative legal means would be utilized to address any issues related to the forthcoming grand opening of Champions Square if a resolution was not reached,” according to the lawsuit.

Then, on Aug. 11, Waguespack again called Painter and advised that he, as executive counsel for the governor’s office, “saw no problem with issuing the requested license to SMG,” whereupon Painter said he would defer to Waguespack—if Waguespack was willing to issue a legal opinion in writing to the ATC as representing the governor’s position.

“The governor’s executive counsel refused and suggested that issuing such an opinion was not a good use of his time and/or position,” Painter says, adding that he understood from that conversation that he “was being ordered to issue the license requested by SMG in direct contravention of law.”

In more than 15 years as ATC commissioner, Painter said he had never received such a call from the governor’s office.

Painter and ATC again refused to issue the requested license and two days later, on Aug. 13, Painter was summoned to the governor’s office on the fourth floor of the State Capitol where he met with Waguespack, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson and another member of the governor’s legal staff.

Painter was advised that an unidentified law enforcement agency (later identified as OIG) was investigating him for alleged criminal violations, specifically sexual harassment, and that Jindal was asking for his resignation.

Painter said he asked if Jindal was asking for his resignation because it was his prerogative to do so or because of the criminal investigation and when informed it was because of the investigation, he refused to resign and was fired.

Despite, the manner in which his dismissal came about, it was subsequently reported to the media that he had resigned.

In what Painter described as another means of garnering publicity, an OIG investigator obtained a search warrant to search Painter’s office at ATC even though a previous investigation by the Department of Revenue had already cleared Painter of any wrongdoing.

The administration, through OIG, zeroed in on the sexual harassment charges for Painter’s former administrative assistant Kelli Suire. Suire did contact local news media in July of 2010 with claims of sexual harassment by Painter and on Aug. 6, an email purportedly sent from lindseyjarrrell@rocketmail.com to several media outlets outlined several complaints about Painter and ATC, including the alleged sexual harassment of Suire and that Painter stalked Suire by going to her home on several occasions. The email, Painter learned from his own investigation, originated from the Louisiana State Library near the State Capitol.

Painter also claims that Suire and ATC Deputy Commissioner Brant Thompson were cooperating with each other in efforts to undermine Painter’s authority.

Painter says he took his concerns to Thompson’s father, State Sen. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi) on Aug. 12 and the elder Thompson offered assurances that his son would cooperate with Painter in the future.

Painter then asked that Brant Thompson report to his office no later than Monday, Aug. 16, “to discuss his conduct and accept a suspension from his job duties.”

That meeting never occurred because Painter was fired the following day and Brant Thompson was appointed interim commissioner until the appointment of current commissioner Troy Hebert.

Almost a year before Painter’s dismissal, on October 16, 2009, Suire resigned her position at ATC. But three days later, on Oct. 19, Painter, on ATC business in Washington, D.C., received a call from his office informing him that Suire had been in his office for several hours that morning copying files, Painter says in a separate defamation lawsuit against Suire.

That suit was filed in 23rd Judicial District Court in Ascension Parish while his lawsuit against the state for wrongful firing was filed in 19th JDC in Baton Rouge. And while considerable coverage was given his firing and the subsequent charges of sexual harassment, minimal coverage has been given his lawsuits by Baton Rouge area media outlets.

Sometime following his Aug. 13 firing in 2010, Painter learned of a letter dated 11 days earlier, on Aug. 2, to LDR Deputy secretary Earl Millet, Jr. from Barry Kelly, assistant director of Revenue’s Criminal Investigations Division in which Kelly gave the results of his investigation of six accusations against Painter, including sexual harassment and stalking of Suire.

In that letter, Kelly said, an attorney was hired to conduct an investigation into the allegations and when questioned, “Ms. Suire admitted that there was no sexual harassment.”

Prior to that Aug. 2 letter, on March 29, the Department of revenue sent a letter to Suire reporting its findings. That letter said, in part, “The investigator met with yourself, Painter and other ATC employees. Based upon the information gathered during the investigation, LDR has determined Painter’s actions did not violate the LDR’s Anti-Harassment Policy…

“The finding is based upon information secured during your interview wherein you indicated Painter did not make unwelcome sexual advances toward you. You also indicated Painter did not request sexual favors or engage in verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature to you. Additionally, you also stated that your complaint against Painter was not one of sexual harassment.”

Despite that admission, the governor’s office, through OIG, proceeded with its investigation, accusing Painter of accessing the criminal records database 314 times in more than five years between February 25, 2005, and Aug. 13, 2010. Subsequent information obtained by Painter through legal discovery revealed that OIG received 1,063 complaints between June 20, 2009 and June 15, 2011 and determined that not all the complaints constituted a need for a law enforcement data base check.

Yet, during that same two-year period, three OIG investigators combined to access the criminal records database nearly 3,000 times—one of those more than 2,100 times.

Painter’s trial in federal district court in Baton Rouge on the computer fraud charges is scheduled for April 22.

And yet, despite the charges alluded to by Waguespack when he fired Painter, he has never been formally charged with sexual harassment, stalking or surveillance.

And charges of accessing the criminal records data bank 314 times over a period of more than five years—approximately five times per month—to most people would not appear excessive for the head of a law enforcement agency whose job it is to track criminal activity.

…Unless someone was looking for a reason to fire an uncooperative subordinate standing in the way of political expedience and opportunity—and inconveniencing campaign contributors.

LouisianaVoice has learned that Louisiana’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) Ed Driesse and three members of his staff have already or are quitting, apparently over ongoing disagreements with Gov. Bobby Jindal’s staff regarding the outsourcing of the State Office of Information Technology (OIT).

Driesse, who makes $167,000 a year, was contacted Tuesday and said his last day will be April 5.

Assistant Director Barbara Oliver and Deputy CIO Randy Walker retired on Jan. 18. The third, Assistant Director Mike Gusky, is also scheduled to leave, Driesse said.

Oliver presently earns $118,000 per year and Gusky’s salary is $117,000, according to State Civil Service records. Walker’s salary was unavailable.

As the state CIO, Driesse heads the Office of Information Technology in the Division of Administration (DOA) within the Office of the Governor.

The CIO is the state’s point person for matters related to IT and IT resources, including setting policies, standards, hardware and software deployment, strategic and tactical planning, acquisition, management, and operations in keeping with industry trends, both private and public. The CIO oversees several IT organizations within the DOA, acting as architect and primary executor of technical and business strategy for IT in Louisiana state government.

Act 772 of 2001set forth several policies of OIT, including:

• The implementation of IT standards for hardware, software and consolidation of services;

• The review and coordination of IT planning, procurement and budgeting;

• The providing of oversight for centralization/consolidation of technology initiatives and the sharing of IT resources;

• Assuring compatibility and connectivity of Louisiana’s information systems;

• The providing of oversight on IT projects and systems for compliance with statewide strategies, goals and standards.

Several additional legislative acts in 2001 provided for:

• The electronic government structure for the executive branch (governor’s office) of state government;

• The duties of the Office of Telecommunications Management (OTM);

• Electronic governmental transactions;

• Electronic transactions by certain state agencies.

Act 409 of 2009 abolished the Office of Electronic Services and transferred its duties to OIT. At the same time, it redefined the duties of the Louisiana Geographic Information Systems Council and the Louisiana Geographic Information Center.

Last February, the Civil Service Commission rejected a plan to terminate 69 IT employees in the Department of Health and Hospitals when DHH attempted to push through a privatization contract with the University of New Orleans (UNO).

Last October, eight months after that initial effort, the Civil Service Commission signed off on a revised proposal that called for revamping DHH IT services.

That plan, which involved no layoffs, called for various IT functions to be spread out among four different entities—DHH, the University of Louisiana Lafayette, UNO and a private vendor, Venyu Solutions. The move was projected to save about $1.12 million from the current $37.8 million expense, the administration said.

Venyu contributed $5,000 to Jindal’s re-election campaign in October of 2011.

In 2012, Louisiana was one of only seven states to receive an A-grade in national rankings on providing online access to government spending data. The state’s score of 92 out of 100 was tied with Massachusetts. Arkansas, by contrast, received a grade of F. The state received a score of only eight out of 100, for third worst in the nation.

The rankings were compiled by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PRIG) Education Fund, a consumer watchdog organization that promotes and evaluates transparency in government spending.

Louisiana’s OIT was also cited as having taken the lead among states in providing detailed performance evaluations of government agencies.

Driesse has 15 years’ experience as a chief information officer in both the public and private sectors, including three Fortune 500 companies.

Prior to his appointment, he served as CIO for DHH and also served as CIO for AECOM Technology Corp., a global design and management services company in Los Angeles, where he managed a budget of more than $50 million and a staff of 260.

He also served as CIO for Foster Wheeler, Ltd., a global engineering and construction company in Clinton, N.J., where he oversaw the global deployment of the JD Edwards integrated applications system.

Driesse also served as Vice President and CIO for Zimmer, Inc., of Warsaw, IN, and for HealthTrust, Inc., of Nashville, TN.

He holds a B.S. in mathematics and a M.S. in computer science, both from the University of Louisiana Lafayette.

There was no word on the planned privatization of OIT.

An email inquiry to the Jindal’s office got no response.