Feeds:
Posts
Comments

“The Louisiana Way Forward means that during these tough economic times, we’re pursuing reforms and efficiencies that make govenment do more with less.”

—Gov.Bobby Jindal, in a May 23, 2010 speech to the Louisiana Gas and Oil Association annual meeting in Lake Charles.

“We don’t need whining, we don’t need complaining. We need leaders to provide vision.”

—Gov. Bobby Jindal on Oct. 22, 2010, as he cut $35 million from the higher education, $21 million from health cae, and $12 million from social services budgets.

“My number one job is creating jobs. That’s why we’re forcing government to do more with less.”

—Gov. Bobby Jindal, in his first re-election ad, in March of this year.

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—If you believe you’ve done a good job at work and would like a nice bonus, you might get in touch with Gov. Bobby Jindal or Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater.

Never mind that times are tough, that unemployment is up, or that state classified personnel have not received a merit increase going on three years now.

Heck, even if you think you deserve a bonus just for showing up at work, you might place a quick call to Baton Rouge.

For that matter, if you’re taking college courses or taking on additional duties at work, you may already be a winner.

While the Jindal administration has been trying to cut the number of employees on the state payroll and continues to put the squeeze on employees by denying pay increases, several employees received around $250,000 in bonuses in the past year, according to records provided by the Louisiana Office of Civil Service.

The State Department of Children and Family Services paid several classified employees $132,184 in rewards and recognition bonuses. Many of those received multiple bonuses for taking on emergency preparedness duties.

Regional administrator Catherine Michiels received more than $11,000 in five separate payments over and above her $90,000 salary for agreeing to be a lead area manager on emergency preparedness, according to a spokesman for the agency.

The Division of Administration (DOA) paid out nearly $90,000 in payments to employees on top of their regular salaries to help upgrade the state’s computer systems.

But wait. Wasn’t it just a short while ago that Jindal admonished state employees and state agencies quit whining and to “do more with less” just before he left on yet another of his frequent out-of-state fund raisers?

In a departure from what has become a familiar routine at DOA, division spokesman Michael DiReso said the administration decided to pay employees extra to take on the project in favor of hiring outside help. The Jindal administration has demonstrated a propensity to hiring contract workers but decided against that in Rainwater’s agency.

Ray Stockstill, an unclassified employee, received $9,000 over three pay periods in December of 2010. Rainwater said he made the decision to pay Stockstill in addition to his $180,000 salary because Stockstill was needed during the recent fiscal crisis and difficult budget process.

“The reality is Ray is 67 years old,” Rainwater said. “There was a possibility of him considering retirement.”

At 180 grand per? That’s only $20,000 less than we paid President Bill Clinton to walk around with a little black briefcase with which he could launch a nuclear war.

At any given time in state government, there are hundreds of employees who are “considering retirement,” but because Stockstill works for Rainwater, he apparently warranted special consideration over others “considering retirement.”

Rainwater said Stockstill was instrumental in helping win passage of a state operating budget that spared health care and education from drastic cuts. “Ray’s a very strong leader,” Rainwater said. “He’s a good negotiator.”

But wasn’t that his job? What’s wrong with tossing a good ol’ “attaboy” his way, something that other rank and file civil service employees find missing from the governor’s repertoire these days?

He said he offered Stockstill the lump-sum payment as an incentive to persuade him to remain with the administration for another year. He now plans to retire in November—unless, of course, another surplus is in the offing.

Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola Warden Burl Cain received $14,872 and Dixon Correctional Institute Warden Steve Rader received more than $11,000 for “regional warden duties.”

Department of Corrections Pam Laborde said the wardens did not receive lump sum bonuses but that they were added to their pay every two weeks.

Well, that certainly softens the blow to employees who have gone without raises while the costs of fuel, food, utilities, college tuition and other commodities have continued to rise.

Laborde said the regional warden concept dates back four years. Cain and Rader help oversee other parts of the prison system, she said.

Again, we refer you to Jindal’s “DMWL” (Do More with Less) obsession as the phrase applies to rank and file workers.

State Rep. Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he would not have made the payments while at the same time talking about budget cuts. “I certainly would have handled it a different way,” he said.

That seems logical but what is logical does not policy make with this administration. Jindal preaches that because of budgetary constraints, all must share the pain but in the final analysis, pain-sharing appears to be doled out on a somewhat selective basis. Ask the bonus recipients sometime if they adequately shared the pain.

The administration finally got around to making it official. State agencies were specifically prohibited last year from granting merit raises to the great unwashed, as the administration seems to think of them. We prefer to call them what they are: state classified employees.

Before that, it was strictly by subterfuge—smoke and mirrors, if you will.

It was during the tenure of former Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis that word came down to agencies under the DOA umbrella that the method of grading employees’ performance on annual professional performance ratings (PPRs) was to be altered.

Oh, the change was subtle, to be sure, but it was change nonetheless and its effects were immediate. The word came directly from DOA. Supervisors and managers were told privately—conveniently, nothing was put in writing—that they were strongly encouraged not to give ratings of 4.0-4.5 (the highest rating, for “outstanding”) or even 3.5-4.9 (exceeds expectations). A rating of, 2.5-3.49 simply means an employee “achieves expectations,” but supervisory personnel were verbally discouraged from awarding anything higher than a 2.0, which would automatically make the employee ineligible for a merit increase.

There will be official denials from the administration, of course, but too many supervisors—all independent of one another—have shared this information with LouisianaVoice for there not to be more than a grain of truth to the story.

After all, they had nothing to gain from revealing this unwritten policy. All they gained was the ability to look their employees in the eye and themselves in the mirror.

But certainly no bonus.

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—A state audit of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) released Monday by the Legislative Auditor’s Office would appear to validate fears expressed by opponents of privatization of the agency.

The 22-page audit report represents a substantial setback to the administration’s plan to sell off the agency and its $500 million surplus even though it’s not likely to change its position on selling off OGB, state prisons and Medicaid operations.

Among the findings of the audit:

• A private company may incur marketing costs that are higher than OGB;

• As a state agency, OGB is exempt from paying premium taxes while other (private) health insurance companies are required to pay premium taxes according to R.S. 22:838(B);

• OGB does not have a profit motivation because it is a state agency whose goals are to provide a service and pay claims. A private company will most likely build a profit margin into the premium structure;

• If the contractor assumes all risk (fully insured), the contractor will most likely purchase reinsurance. Currently, OGB does not have reinsurance. These cost considerations are dependent on the premium and/or benefit structure restrictions that are placed on the contract;

• If the state sells the business, the incurred liabilities, up to the date of the sale, must be paid by either the state or the new owner. If the state remains responsible for the incurred liabilities, there should be a provision in the contract to address payment of these liabilities. If not, there would be no revenue stream after the sale to pay the outstanding claims;

• The sale of the business would diminish the legislative and/or state administrative control over cost, benefits, or changes to the plans;

• Cost savings may result from the efficiencies gained by using an established health care provider with well-structured administrative processes. The contract would be the vehicle for establishing cost parameters.

The audit also mentioned the administration’s contract with Chaffe and Associates to establish the fair market value of the operations of OGB as of Jan. 31, 2011, apparently so that Gov. Jindal could include the proposed sale of the agency in his Executive Budget.

“According to the 2012 OGB Executive Budget initially submitted, OGB estimated a savings of $10,155,906 resulting from personnel reductions of 149 positions,” the audit report said. “It was explained to us that the reduction would be result of the PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) being privatized. Those positions were restored in the budget process.”

The audit also mentioned the administration’s contract with Chaffe and Associates to establish the fair market value of the operations of OGB as of Jan. 31, 2011, apparently so that Gov. Jindal could include the proposed sale of the agency in his Executive Budget. That information, however, was not included in the Executive Budget, leading many to believe the report did not contain information the administration desired.

Fueling that speculation was the reluctance of the administration to release the Chaffe report, even in a faceoff between Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, Assistant Commissioner Mark Brady and the legislature.

A report was eventually leaked to the media but that only prompted more skepticism because Rainwater on May 31 and Division of Administration (DOA) attorney Paul Holmes four days earlier, on May 27, each indicated the Chaffe report was received by DOA on May 25 but could not be release because it was still in the “deliberative process.”

Chaffe officials, however, did not sign off on the report’s signature page until June 3. Moreover, none of the leaked report’s pages were date stamped even though all documents received by DOA are routinely date stamped.

There was speculation that there may have been two reports—one that said the only advantage to selling OGB would be if the buyer retained the agency’s $500 million surplus (a clause that at least one person who saw the report prior to its being leaked said it contained) and the leaked report which did not contain such language.

Moreover, the report said, the Chaffe report, which was performed under a $49,999.99 contract—one cent below the amount requiring statutory review—placed a value of $217 million on OGB, assuming a five-year privatization term.

The report, however, failed to take several considerations into account, according to the audit report. “The valuation range:

• does not assume any increased costs as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;

• does not consider the impact, if any, of increased premium costs incurred by the state as a result of the privatization;

• does not consider the value of the existing fund balance, which was $499.2 million as of the valuation date of Jan. 31, 2011.

In effect, the audit report indicated the $49,999.99 paid Chaffe was money wasted.

The audit report did not address the discrepancies mentioned above nor did it attempt to reconcile the significant difference in bids on two separate but virtually identical requests for proposals (RFPs) issued by DOA.

The first RFP was issued on Feb. 4 that called for the services of a financial advisor to determine OGB’s assets and determine a fair market value and to actively recruit bidders to purchase the agency.

Prior to the date of that RFP, as early as October of 2010, Goldman Sachs was brought in to help draft the RFP. Goldman Sachs subsequently was the lone bidder on that RFP with a bid of $6 million. Negotiations broke down over Goldman Sachs’s insistence on the state’s indemnifying the Wall Street banking firm in any ensuing litigation.

A second RFP was then issued on May 6 and three firms submitted bids. They were Goldman Sachs, Barclays Capital and Morgan Keegan. On July 15, Rainwater announced that Morgan Keegan had been chosen for the contract on the basis of its bid of $900,000–$5.1 million lower than Goldman Sachs’s bid on the first RFP.

In the interim between the issuance of the first RFP and the acceptance of Morgan Keegan as the contractor on the second RFP, OGB lost two directors.

On April 15, Tommy Teague, who had taken the agency from a $60 million deficit to the $500 million surplus in a period of only six years, was terminated by Rainwater, who never gave any reason for Teague’s firing.

Teague was replaced on that same day by Scott Kipper, who was brought over from the Louisiana Department of Insurance. Kipper resigned on June 24, just over two months after his appointment.

The audit report says any plan to sale OGB must be approved by the Legislature under the provisions of R.S. 49:968(C). “Any substantial changes to the function and role of OGB in regard to the administration and management of group insurance policies would require legislative action to amend applicable substantive laws addressing the resulting reorganization of the Executive Branch,” the report said. “This reorganization is, by Constitution, with the exclusive authority of the Legislature.”

State Sen. Butch Gautreaux (D-Morgan City) said he had not fully reviewed the audit “but it appears that the auditor agrees that there are a lot of unanswered questions and that the buyer would have to agree to keeping the plan pretty much as it is. I seriously doubt that a for-profit (company) would agree to those terms,” he added.

Rainwater, in his response to the audit, fell back on the same argument the administration has used throughout the debate: the number of employees at OGB–309–which he insists is excessive.

He also denied that the wholesale privatization of OGB is under consideration. even though he expressly listed that as an option in testimony earlier that that was indeed an option, even going so far as to say in April that that the OGB surplus would be “an attractive selling point” because the private company that ultimately purchases the agency would not have to dip into its own capital to pay claims initially.

Rainwater noted that the report said state auditors were unable to identify any states that had “fully” privatized their state employee health insurance agencies. “Given that this administration itself has never proposed the complete privatization of OGB, the relevance of this research point is not exactly clear,” Rainwater said.

In April, however, he expressly listed that as an option in testimony before the Senate Insurance Committee that full privatization was indeed an option, even going so far as to say that that the OGB surplus would be “an attractive selling point” because the private company that ultimately purchases the agency would not have to dip into its own capital to pay claims initially.

Rainwater took the same stance with auditors’ observation that the “wholesale privatization” of OGB would require approval by the full Legislature. “I wonder, again, about the practical usefulness of the point since it is based on a premise—the ‘full’ or ‘wholesale’ privatization of OGB—that is not even under consideration.

In his testimony before the Senate Insurance Committee, however, he said, “We’re taking OGB out of the day-to-day business of running an insurance company.”

He downplayed speculation in the audit that privatization might result in higher insurance premiums, saying such speculation cannot be supported based on the research contained in the report.

Despite a record of fast turnaround of claims payments, Rainwater said, “The possibility of providing quality service in a manner that’s also more efficient is precisely why we have begun this evaluation of OGB, and we owe it to the taxpayers to evaluate it fully.”

Even though he has stated publicly that OGB was being taken “out of the day-to-day business of running an insurance company,” he said in his letter, “OGB’s administrative oversight will continue, securing the continued success of all the plans.”

Administrative oversight has already resulted in DOA’s approval in May of this year of a $7 million amendment to the $68 million paid F.A. Richard and Associates (FARA) by the state a year ago to take over the operations of another state agency, the Office of Risk Management. A week after that contract was amended, FARA was sold to an Ohio company.

So much for administrative oversight.

It was a typical hot, humid summer day in Louisiana’s capital city as the agency director (AD) sat at his desk going over his budget for the coming year. The legislature had implemented drastic cuts while continuing to approve projects in their districts that just didn’t make any sense.

Since when was the state responsible for funding local court houses, fire stations, convention centers, municipal buildings, golf courses, baseball parks, parish roads, and chicken plucking plants? Yet, there they all were, line item by line item in the state budget, about half a billion dollars worth.

Yet, for the third straight year, he was unable to provide pay raises for his employees who, during those same three years, had seen the price of groceries, gasoline, health insurance and college tuition continue to rise. For the most part they were all good, hard-working employees. There were the few duds, of course; every agency has those. In fact, every private sector employer has the occasional slacker. In some cases, the laziest, least qualified employees are related to the boss. Same thing in the public sector; you’d be surprised how many of the so-called deadhead state employees are related to legislators.

Oh, well, there was nothing he could do about it, he sighed to himself. That’s just the way it is.

Then there came a knock at his door. “Come in,” he called out, looking up from his budget printout.

His administrative assistant opened the door and ushered in three men, all strangers. They were young, dressed in jeans and cowboy boots and there was an air of arrogance the AD picked up on immediately, putting him on his guard.

“These gentlemen are here to see you from Jesters for the Natural Diminution of All Logic,” his assistant announces.

“The Jest….who? What?”

“Jesters for the Natural Diminution of All Logic,” said one of the men. “My name is Tippy. We just call ourselves JNDAL.”

“I’m sorry, I’ve never heard of you. Did you have an appointment?”

“We don’t need an appointment,” said Tippy, whose hair was cropped short and whose western shirt was opened at the collar. He didn’t wear a sport coat or a tie with his jeans. Probably drives a Jeep Cherokee, thought the AD. Tippy continued: “We represent the governor’s office and we’re here to go over the administration’s new plan for grading state agencies on Proficiency, Efficiency, and Effectiveness. We refer to it as PEE.”

“PEE? What? Wait. I’ve never heard of any grading plan. When did all this come about?” the AD asked, clearly bewildered.

“It’s a new program patterned after the school grading system initiated by the Department of Education,” Tippy said. “We send in a team to test your employee performance and if they return with a Detrimental Unqualified Negative Grade, you are subject to having your agency taken over by a private entity and you can be terminated.”

“How can you justify turning this department over to a private agency?” the AD asked, incredulous. “And how can you use some silly test as a barometer in determining my performance? I’ve been a dedicated public servant for 30 years and suddenly I’m not good enough to meet your standards?”

Tippy almost sneered at the question. “You are a reflection of your workers and they are a reflection of you. It’s that simple. If there’s a problem with any of your employees then of course it’s your fault.”

“Wait a minute here. There are all sorts of mitigating circumstances at play in any given office at any given time. You can’t make a blanket judgment like that.”

“Certainly we can. We’re doing it with the schools. Anyone can see if there’s a problem in the school, it’s the teachers and principal who are to blame. Surely you can see that?”

“No. No, I can’t. I have an employee who has been with this agency 33 years and he’s just been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He’s missed work because of treatment but that doesn’t make him any less valuable.”

“Chronic absenteeism is something we cannot overlook in the grading process,” Tippy said.

“I have another who is going through a very stressful divorce. He’s been married 12 years and has three children and his wife just moved in with a tattoo artist and took the kids. You have to cut him a little slack.”

“Aw, poor guy. You mean we should look the other way when his productivity falls off just because he’s having problems? Afraid not.”

“And there’s a single mom raising four kids and the father just took off. She’s having a hard time making ends meet with day care and sometimes has to take off when one of the kids gets sick.”

“Where are her parents? Why can’t they help out once and awhile?” Tippy opened his notepad. “You also had an employee who wrecked a state vehicle.”

“Yes, and we investigated that. He was on assignment and was within the scope of his employment when a drunk ran a red light and broadsided him.”

“You also had an employee who likes to gamble at the casino and who embezzled money from your agency,” Tippy said.

“Yes and we ran a background check on him when he applied for his job. We recommended that he not be hired at that time based on his background but apparently he had some connections with a legislator and I was instructed to hire him anyway,” the AD explained. “I wasn’t allowed to even discipline him, much less prosecute him for the embezzlement.”

“Nevertheless, that goes against your record,” Tippy responded. “I’m afraid your agency just doesn’t measure up to the JNDAL standards.

“We have a company from Myanmar that has submitted a proposal to take over your agency,” Tippy continued. “Please notify your employees that beginning the first of the month, they will be working at the pleasure of Golden Land Enterprises, LTD., and will be required to remit 25 percent of their gross salary to Golden Land President Mykaili Tnushi.”

“What about me?” the AD asked.

Tippy looked up from his notepad. “Surely you can’t be serious. How can you expect to continue in your position when your agency just got such a dismal grade from JNDAL?”

“The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”

—Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, in a letter to George Orwell, 1949.